1. ' The prosecution case is that applicant Laloo, who was on illicit terms with Mst. Sabhai, throttled her by neck and drowned her in the watercourse on 18th June, 1978, at 4-45 P. M. Report was lodged on the following day at 8.30 A. M. By complainant Allah Bachayo husband- of deceased Mst. Sabhai when the distance between the spot and P. S. Is five miles. It is stated by the complainant in F. I. R.
2. That Biloo brother of deceased Sabhai, and three other eye-witnesses namely Qabil, Siddique, and Isso, who are sons of complainant and deceased also came to the spot on cries and saw the incident. Explanation is given in F. I. R. For the delay in reporting the matter to the Police. The reasons given for delay are that firstly, there was a rainfall, secondly, there was a nightfall, and thirdly the complainant went to inform Rais Abdul Hameed about the incident and fourthly no transport was available. It is also stated in F. I. R. And by other eye-witnesses in their 161, Cr. P. C. Statements that at the time of incident Mst. Sabhai had taken earthen jar on her head and went to canal to fetch water. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Mashirnama of vardat does not show the presence of the earthen jar near the vardat. It is further contended that the medical evidence does not support the version of the complainant and th eye-witnesses that Mst. Sabhai was throttled by neck and then subsequently she was thrown in the water. As against this the post- mortem report; of the Doctor. And also his evidence recorded before the -trial Court indicate that there were no marks of violence on the neck and there wa no throttling. The cause of the death given by the doctor, is Asphyxi and shock due to drowning only. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the mashirnama of recovery of dead body also does not mention presence of the marks of violence on the neck of the deceased. The motive as stated in the F. I. R. Is also to the effect that there wa dispute between the parties over the land. There is no other circumstantia evidence in the case and no recovery has been made from the applicant.
3. ' Keepitig in view the circumstances of the case as stated above, I think it is a case for further enquiry. In the meantime applicant Laloo, is, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 20,000 surety and P. 'R. In the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.