WAJID vs THE STATE and another
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner, accused of inflicting a head injury on a minor girl, is entitled to the concession of bail based on the facts and tentative assessment of the record. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner deserved the concession of bail, noting discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, the delayed recording of a material witness's statement, and the medical and physical inspection of the injured victim indicating that the injury was inconsistent with the weapon attributed and could have been caused by a fall or a stick. The court thereby laid down the principle that tentative assessment of inconsistencies in ocular and medical evidence pointing towards further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether inconsistencies between ocular testimony and medical evidence justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does a delayed statement of a material witness warrant further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Whether a physical inspection of an injured victim by the court can be used for tentative assessment at the bail stage?
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 295(c), Criminal Procedure Code 1898
The petitioner is under arrest in case F.I.R. No, 57, dated 4-7-2001 under section 337-F (ii), P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sherwan. The section of law was subsequently altered as section 337- (iii), P.P.C. After his arrest lie applied for the concession of bail which was refused to him in the lower forum hence his petition.
2. Mst. Gulshan lodged the report which was entered in the Daily Diary as Mad. No,11, dated 26-6- 2001 in Police Post Chamhati. She disclosed that at 10 a.m. she alongwith her daughters Majida Bibi, Shahista Bibi and son Amir had gone to fetch water from the village well. The petitioner also crossed her with a bundle of fodder. After fetching the water she alongwith her kid started for the house. Her son Naveed was ploughing the field at some distance from the village well. Mst. Majida left behind her and she was attracted on her noise who was lying on the ground. She and her son Naveed when came near her daughter Majida, found her injured on the head and she (Majida) disclosed that she was given an arm blow on her head by the accused-petitioner. The petitioner was charged for inflicting injury to her daughter Majida aged about 8 years and also disclosed that she was threatened by the petitioner due to previous dispute.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant and State. Also perused the record.
4. The version of complainant recorded in the Daily Diary regarding presence of Naveed is an adjacent field and disclosure of injured Majida on the spot that she was inflicted injury by the petitioner has not been supported by Naveed whose statement was recorded on 21-9-2001 (after 17 days of the occurrence). As regards the previous dispute it is stated at the bar that the husband of complainant is facing the charge under section 295(c) of the Cr.P.C. for which the petitioner 1 as the suspected motivator. The injured Majida was examined by the doctor and found a crescent shaped wound on her left side of the head. Another injury of skin out was also noticed alongwith injury No,
1. The said Majida present in Court was examined and from the healed-up injury of her head it was noticed that the said could not be an injury caused by an axe but is possible either by stick or due to fall on the ground. The learned counsel for complainant also witnessed the healed- up injury of Mst. Majida and expressed his satisfaction that the said injury could not be caused by means of an axe.
5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case I found the petitioner deserving the concession of bail. He is, therefore, allowed to be rereads on bail provided he furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate.