SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' The brief facts of the matter per F.I.R. No,124 of 2001, lodged at Police Station Dadu on 25-7-2001 are that around 2-00 p.m. On the same date the complainant atongwith his brother Fateh Muhammad and nephew Muhammad Hashim had come to Dadu to attend a Court hearing and thereafter had proceeded to Dodani Mori on the Indus Highway by bus when the accused namely Shafi Muhammad, Urs and Rehmatullah were found to be standing there out of whom Shafi Muhammad had a wooden Patti in his hand and Urs had some piece of bricks. Then accused Rehmatullah instigated the other accused to kill Fateh Muhammad where upon Shafi Muhammad gave a blow to Fateh Muhammad which hit him on the front of his face who raised cries and fell down on the ground. Then accused Urs caused brick blows to Fateh Muhammad which hit his face and back side of neck. Then the complainant party raised cries then some persons sitting in a hotel came running where upon the accused made good their escape. It was then discovered that Fateh Muhammad had died, thereafter the F.I.R. Was lodged.

2. ' Based on the foregoing facts learned counsel for the applicant has firstly submitted that no independent witnesses have been examined by the police although admittedly the same were available. Secondly co-accused Urs and Rehmatullah have been let off by the police and this appears to be particularly strange since at least so far as the case of Urs is concerned it is at par with that of Shafi Muhammad, since both of them have allegedly caused injuries to the deceased.

3. Thirdly learned counsel has submitted that per the medico-legal evidence it has been opined that four injuries were received by the deceased and at least two of them were enough to have caused his death. Here in the circumstances it is yet to be seen as to which of these injuries has caused the death of the deceased since admittedly the applicant Shafi Muhammad is alleged to have caused one such injury. Learned counsel has thus, prayed for grant of bail this being case of further inquiry.

4. ' On the other hand the learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that this was a premeditated murder committed in the daylight and at this stage sufficient evidence was available with the prosecution to connect the applicant/accused with the crime in question.

5. ' I have heard both the learned counsel as well as learned State Counsel.

6. In my opinion although medico-legal evidence is in accord with the ocular account, the fact that as two of the injuries caused to the deceased have been certified as being sufficient for the occurrence of his death, it is yet to be seen as to who had given the fatal blow since admittedly only one blow has been attributed to the applicant. This aspect of the matter becomes even more important since co-accused Urs who had allegedly also caused injuries to the deceased has been let off by the police.

7. ' The above are the reasons whereby bail was granted by myself to the applicant on 12-11-2001.