' Malik Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam sons of Ghulam Muhammad were involved in a case under section 324/337/109, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990, registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran, District Sheikhupura, on 11-10-1991, on the statement of Khadim Hussain, a student of second year, whose brother Muhammad Jameel suffered serious injuries in the alleged occurrence, in the evening on 9-10-1991, and succumbed to the injuries subsequently on 17-11-1991, whereafter an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was added.
2. Chaudhry Muhammad Mahmood, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura dismissed the bail petition of both the accused persons, respecting Malik Muhammad on merits and as regards Muhammad Aslam, on withdrawal. The order was passed on 4-8-1992, which I have gone through.
It makes a convincing reading; and I agree with the observation of the learned lower Court that ipsi dixit of the Investigating Officer is not binding on the Court. The D.S.P. Gave the finding that the fight had erupted on an altercation between Jameel deceased's younger brother Khalid and Muhammad Aslam accused, and that Malik Muhammad and his mother Mst. Bashiran were injured in the occurrence, whereupon Aslam accused retaliated and caused injuries to Jameel. A number of affidavits were submitted before the D.S.P. To the effect that Malik Muhammad brother of Muhammad Aslam was present on the occasion, but he snatched away hatchet from the hands of Aslam, so as to prevent him from causing further damage to the adversaries. In the opinion of the Investigating Officer the complainant party had initiated the offensive and had been guilty of aggression, and the accused had only acted in retaliation, and on being provoked by the violence indulged in by the other side.
3. What has been narrated in the F.I.R., however, does not appear to be improbable, and it appears that the incident had occurred in the stated manner. The P.Ws. Had deposed to that effect in the course of investigation. Malik Muhammad had caused a serious injury with his hatchet on the forhead of Muhammad Jameel, who had profuse bleeding, and he sat down, reclining against a wall, whereupon Muhammad Aslam, with his hatchet, landed two further blows on Muhammad Jameel's head. All these injuries resulted in his death, although a few days afterwards. Such a formidable weapon as hatchet was made use of by the applicant-accused in the murderous assault, and the harm incurred by the accused and their mother was comparatively not as grave, as would be revealed by the medico-legal reports. They might have been injured in the course of the same occurrence, although their injuries do not find mention in the F.I.R., but it will be possible in the course of trial only to determine as to which party had committed aggression, and to what extent the accused were actually at fault. At this stage, it would not be just and proper, nor indeed it will be possible, to judge as to which party was verily on the rampage. The fact remains that Muhammad Jameel died in consequence of the injuries he had sustained at the hands of the accused in the reported incident, and although he might have suffered detention for a period of about a year, there appears to be in existence no good ground justifying his enlargement on bail.
He may have to wait till expiry of the statutory period of two years, or the result of trial, which, it is hoped, will commence and conclude before long. I proceed to reject the petitioner's prayer for admittance to bail.