1. Petitioners Muhammad Farooq and Muhammad Arshad seek bail in a case registered against them and another with Police Station Urban Area, Sargodha, for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. Dated 23-6-1990. The case was got registered by Muhammad Anwar with the allegation that on 23-6-1990 at about 7-00 p.m., the first informant with his father Muhammad Rafique was busy in his shop selling ice when the petitioners armed with Sotas, with their co- accused Sakhawat Ali came there and raised a Lalkara that they had come to teach them lesson for insulting their womenfolk. Sakhawat Ali gave a Sota blow on the back of the first informant. It was followed by Muhammad Farooq petitioner. First informant's father Muhammad Rafiq stepped forward to rescue when Sakhawat Ali gave a kick blow on his chest. Muhammad Farooq's kick landed in the abdomen of Muhammad Rafique who fell down. Muhammad Arshad petitioner gave number of fist and kick blows on the testicles, abdomen and chest of Muhammad Rafique who fainted. The occurrence was witnessed by the witnesses. Said Muhammad Rafique because of the injuries, died while being transported to the hospital.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Sakhawat Ali co-accused of the petitioners, was declared innocent after thorough investigation. Contends that the petitioners were alleged to have been armed with Sotas, yet they did not choose to use them, instead resorted to kick and fist blows which clearly indicates that they did not have the intention to commit murder.
3. Asserts that according to the post-mortem report said Muhammad Rafique had died because of the injuries Nos. 1 and 3 which were on the testicles and neck of Muhammad Rafique. Asserts that as far as the injury on the neck is concerned, it has not been ascribed to any of the petitioners. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The petitioners were armed with Sotas but they did not choose to use the same in launching an assault. Injury No.3 on the neck of the deceased has neither been ascribed to any of the petitioners nor it finds mention in the F.I.R.
4. The rest of the injuries were declared simple by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination.