KHAMISO vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the significant contradictions in the prosecution's case. The complainant had filed an initial F.I.R. and two subsequent direct complaints, each implicating a different number of accused persons and providing varying accounts of the incident. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the cause of injuries conflicted with the allegations in the F.I.R., and the state could not reconcile the accused's alleged confession with the medical report. The Court held that these inconsistencies and the conflicting versions presented by the complainant rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case is marred by material contradictions and discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Does the filing of multiple complaints with conflicting versions of an incident entitle an accused to bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's version of the incident?
- Can an accused be released on bail when the prosecution fails to reconcile the alleged confession with the medical report?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant has been sent up to face trial for the offence, punishable under section 302, P.P.C.
2. ' Mr. Khadim Hussain Solangi, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant Juman son of Nathu Mallah lodged F.I.R. In Crime No,17 of 2000 at Police Station Sehwan and filed two direct complaints, being Complaints No,6 of 2000 and 18 of 2000 in respect of the same incident. He has given different versions in the F.I.R. And two direct complaints. According to F.I.R. Four persons caused injuries to deceased Nazir son of complainant. In direct Complaint No,6 of 2000 7 accused persons were implicated. While in direct Complaint No,18 of 2000 5 accused persons have been implicated. The direct Complaint No,6 of 2000 has been dismissed for non- prosecution as the complainant did not appear before the learned Sessions Judge for his statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that according to medical certificate, injuries were caused to the deceased by fire-arm and hard blunt substance while according to F.I.R. All injuries were caused by sharp side of hatchet. Learned State Counsel has stated that confession of the accused was also recorded, according to which, he threw brick which hit the deceased on his nose.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that I because of conflicting and contradictory versions of the complainant, it is a case of further inquiry, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. The learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail but he has not been able to deny that the complainant has given varying, versions in the -FIR. And two direct complaints. The learned State Counsel is further unable to reconcile the alleged confession of the accused with the medical report.
4. ' For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail and consequently the accused Khamiso son of Punhoon is granted bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL MAJEED WPC vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 818