JAWAID AKHTAR Versus STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant Jawaid Akhtar who is accused in Crime No.232/93 under section 302, P.P.C. as amended by Q&D Ordinance registered at Police Station Korangi on 16-4-1993 seeks bail. His application for bail moved in the Court of VIIth Additional Sessions Judge. Karachi East is rejected by order, dated 26-5-1993.

2. The F.I.R. in this case is based on Roznamcha Entry No.56, dated 16-4-1993 at 21-15 hours which was made at the instance of police constable Muhammad Fayaz who stated that a dead body was lying in House No.N-117, Sector 35/C, Korangi, which house belonged to the applicant. The A.S.I. Malik Ghulam Hyder went at the given place and found the dead body of Mst. Parveen wife of applicant Jawaid Akhtar and in his view the death had occurred due to strangulation and the blood from nostril and mouth was noticed with marks of fingers around the neck. The applicant who was present at the Wardat was seen wearing a shirt with bloodstains and marks of bite on right hand thumb. During investigation it transpired that deceased was second wife of the applicant and because of dispute between them she was done to death by applicant.

3. It has been argued by learned Advocate for the applicant that the medical report in respect of the deceased as well as the applicant is inconsistent with the F.I.R., inasmuch as although the report shows that blood had oozed from the mouth and nostril of the deceased, no such blood is shown in the medical report. Similarly, according to the learned Advocate there is inconsistency between the F.I.R. and medical report in respect of injury on the thumb of the applicant. It has been argued that in these circumstances applicant's case would require further inquiry. In support of such contentions learned Advocate has referred to 1990 S C M R 1051, 1978 S C M R 171 and 1988 M L D 607. The last contention of the Advocate is that the P.W. Habib who has not supported the prosecution case in his statement before police. Bail is opposed by the learned AA.-G. who has argued that the motive for the commission of the murder is spelled out from circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the murder of the deceased was committed by the applicant at the instigation of the first wife. There are bite marks on the thumb of the applicant seemingly caused due to resistance by the deceased.

4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. There is no ocular evidence in the case but strong circumstantial evidence does exist and I some inconsistency in the F.I.R. and the medical report would be I inconsequential for the decision of this application. The bite marks on the' thumb of the applicant are suggestive of the fact that the deceased during the process of being strangulated had resisted, resulting into the bite marks on the A two thumbs of the applicant. From the police papers it also appears that applicant was wearing a shirt which was bloodstained and he was present in the house when A.S.I. Malik Ghulam Hyder went at the given place. There are no reasonable ground to believe that applicant is not guilty of the offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or for ten years. At this early stage it cannot be said that his case is of further inquiry. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

5. N.H.Q./J-173/K Bail refused.