' Liaquat Ali son of Muhammad Boota has been convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. By Mr. Rustam Ali Malik, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, vide judgment/order, dated the 27th of February, 1994 and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. Liaquat Ali has appealed against his conviction and sentence by way of Criminal Appeal No,102 of 1994 which stands admitted to regular hearing vide order dated the 13th of November, 1994.
3. In this petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. Liaquat Ali petitioner seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail on the ground that according to the prosecution while he was armed with a .12 bore gun with which he fired at the deceased and caused an injury on the right thigh of the deceased, the medical evidence reveals that there is no injury at all on the right thigh of the deceased. In this context learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 11 of the judgment of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the latest view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is to the effect that a prayer for bail under section 426, Cr.P.C. Should not be declined simply on the ground that it requires re-appraisal of evidence and that if an applicant insists on securing an order the Court has to consider the prayer and dispose of the application on merits. In this context reliance is placed by learned counsel on the case of Muhammad Akram v. The Stale reported in 1994 SCMR 277 and the case of Muhammad Afzal and another v. The State reported in 1994 SCM R 453.
4. Accordingly the required exercise was undertaken with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and leaned counsel for the State. The original F.I.R. Has been examined wherein the allegation against Liaquat Ali petitioner is to the effect that he was armed with a .12 bore gun with which he fired at Muhammad Shafi deceased and hit him on the right side of the abdomen. The exact word used in the F.I.R. Is and not . According to the ingest report the shot fired by Liaquat Ali petitioner injured the abdomen of the deceased. The ocular account has been furnished by complainant Muhammad Siddique (P.W.4), Farman Ali (P.W.5) and Qurban Ali (P.W.6). All three have stated in their evidence that Liaquat Ali petitioner fired with his gun and injured Muhammad Shafi deceased on his abdomen towards the right side and this has also been repeated in the judgment of the trial Court in paragraphs 16, 17 and 19. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Shafi deceased shows a fire-arm wound of entry 1.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. On front of right side of abdomen upper part (injury No,4). The injury statement has been repeated in paragraph 11 of the judgment of the trial Court.
5. Thus, prima facie there is no discrepancy much less contradiction between ocular account and the medical evidence. I am restraining myself from observing that the ocular account is in line with and is being corroborated by the medical evidence lest it prejudices the case of the petitioner whose appeal has yet to be heard.
6. Sufficient to say that there is no merit in this application which isle dismissed.