' Petitioners are accused for the commission of offence under section 302/324/337-A read with section 452/148/149, P.P.C. The prosecution case as narrated by Muhammad Sharif complainant was that the land adjacent to the house of complainant was the bone of contention, as one Naazir Hussain wanted to purchase the same, but he himself got the same land in lieu of Rs,11,000, on account of which Naazir Hussain and sons felt aggrieved. On the fateful day, the complainant, his wife Mst. Bashiran, his sister Munawar Bibi, his brother Muhammad Ismail and Nazir Ahmad son of Lal were sitting in the courtyard, when in the meanwhile, Muhammad Arif alias Kala armed with Kulhari, Tariq Mehmood armed with Kulhari, Muhammad Ashiq armed with Drat, Khalid Mehmood and Asghar All sons of Naazir Hussain armed with Sotas and Nazir Hussain armed with Kassi trespassed into the said house. Naazir Hussain started demolishing the outer wall of the house with his Kassi. The complainant came forward and restrained him from doing so, whereupon, Muhammad Ashiq inflicted a Drat blow hitting the back of his head. Then Muhammad Arif alias Kala inflicted a hatchet blow on the head of Muhammad Sharif, as a consequence whereof, he fell on the ground. Ismail brother of the complainant came to rescue him, when Tariq Mehmood gave a hatchet blow hitting the back side of the head of Ismail. Thereafter, Asghar All gave a Sota blow on the head of Ismail, who also fell on the ground. Thereafter, both Muhammad Sharif and Ismail were given Sota blows by Khalid Mehmood and Asghar All injuring various parts of their bodies. In the meanwhile, Mst. Bashirah wife of Muhammad Sharif came forward, when Ashiq Hussain caught hold of her from the neck, and threw her on the ground. Thereafter, Muhammad Arif also threw her on the ground in the same manner. Hue and cry raised attracted the witnesses to the scene of occurrence and thus the victims were rescued. The complainant further stated in the F.I.R., that since none of their family memebers was present in the house who could take them to the hospital or could inform the police, therefore, they remained at the scene of occurrence. According to the first informant, his wife Mst. Bashiran died in the evening of 3rd of June, 1991.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition contends, that in fact, there were two different occurrences. In the first occurrence, after altercation and fight, a Punchayat had taken place, and a compromise was being negotiated, when Mst. Bashiran came out of the room, and objected to the compromise proceedings, whereupon, she was given kick blows, which proved to be fatal. Thereafter, both the occurrences were combined together, so as to show it as one and the same occurrence resulting into the death of Mst. Bashiran.
3. It is further contended by the learned counsel that as far as petitioners are concerned, in fact, they had caused simple injuries to the P.W. and the complainant, and had not even touched the deceased, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners had acted in the prosecution of their common object to kill Mst. Bashiran.
4. Learned counsel further argued that a number of D.Ws. had appeared before the Investigating Officer to prove that actually two different occurrences had taken place.
5. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel, and have perused the medical report in this case, but I do not find any substance therein. As far as defence version is concerned, although, it was brought before the Investigating Officer, but he did not agree with it, and found the petitioners and others as responsible for the commission of offence. Absence of any role of the petitioners qua the deceased is hardly relevant in view of the motive explained in the F.I.R. Petitioners and their father alongwith others while variously armed had trespassed into the house of the complainant, and started demolishing the outer wall of his house, and then had launched the attack on the complainant side. Prima fade, I am satisfied that the petitioners had also acted in furtherance of their common intention, therefore, their case cannot be bifurcated at this stage. Hence, I am not inclined to admit them to bail; therefore, this petition is dismissed.