SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Seeks bail after arrest in case, F.I.R. No,281 dated 18-5-2010 under sections 334, 337-VII, P.P.C, Police Station, Saddar Bhakkar, District Bhakkar, on the complaint of Akram Ali.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution case as unfurled by the complainant, in the F.I.R., is that on 11-5-2010 at about 11-47 a.m., the complainant was present at Naka 42/5 for irrigating his land as it was his turn of water but found that the water through the said terminal was not flowing as Arshad Ali petitioner and Hussan Ali were irrigating their fields in violation of the schedule whereupon the complainant reminded them of his turn of water; Arshad Ali, petitioner caught hold of the complainant from his beard and gave fists blows on his face, which resulted in uprooting of one of his teeth, besides other injuries on the face; the co-accused of the petitioner Hussain Ali also committed violence upon the complainant.
3. It has been found from the medico legal report of Muhammad Akram, the complainant that the medical officer did not find any clotted blood in or around socket nor any bleeding or swelling was noticed by him on the gums or lips of the injured. It has been observed by the medical officer that no marks of violence existed around mouth and lips of the examinee/injured. The Dental Surgeon declared the Injury No,2 of the injured complainant as Itlaf-iTooth, if proved otherwise.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the story contained in the F.I.R. is false and Muhammad Arshad petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant; the offence under section 334, P.P.C. is not made out as the injuries of the complainant have not resulted into Itlaf-i-Udw and his injuries, at the most, catch the mischief of section 337-U, P.P.C. which is primarily punishable with payment of Arsh; there is an inordinate delay of 7 days in the lodgment of the F.I.R. and the complainant has offered no explanation in this respect; the Investigating Officer is under the thumb of the son of the complainant who is an official of the Interior Ministry and he is bent upon in humiliating the petitioner; lastly contends that the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. with a specific role of having not only caused the defiling of the beard of the complainant, who is an aged man of 70 years but also gave blows on his mouth and face which caused the uprooting of one of his teeth; the Investigating Officer deleted sections 337-L(2), 337-U, P.P.C. during the course of investigation and replaced them with sections 334, 337-V, P.P.C; the injured, complainant and the eye-witnesses still support the prosecution case; the petitioner was found involved in the occurrence during the course of investigation and stands placed in Column No,3 of the challan; lastly contends that the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and he is not entitled for relief prayed for.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The occurrence in the instant case took place on a dispute of turn of water, as the complainant found Naka No,42/5-4 dried up and his fields were not being irrigated. He also found at the time of occurrence that the accused-petitioner and his co-accused had violated his turn of water and they were still irrigating their fields due to which the hot words were exchanged between them, followed by the above said brawl. I am afraid, the medico legal report does not support the version of the complainant as the medical officer at the time of medical examination of the examinee did not find any marks of violence on or around his mouth, lips, gums or socket and the hygienic condition of the teeth of the complainant was noticed as poor. This question shall be determined by the learned trial Court if uprooting of the tooth had taken place because of the violence committed by the petitioner upon the complainant or it was extracted due to poor hygienic condition.
8. The uprooting of a tooth, of course, cannot be considered as Itlaf-i-Udw as a single tooth does not form a complete organ of the human anatomy as it has been observed in the case titled Zahoor Ahmad and another v. The State (2005 YLR 1664), that section 334, P.P.C. is made out if an organ or limb is amputated, whereas a finger of the hand or toes of the foot are not the organs, similarly teeth are not an organ, but the whole jaw is an organ. Whether the case of the petitioner would fall within the ambit of section 337-U, P.P.C. or under section 336, P.P.C. is a question where about the prosecution seems to be perplexed. In the attending circumstance, the charge with which the petitioner is confronted, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
10. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative and shall have no bearing upon the merits of the case.