' Petitioner Muhammad" Ikram sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,7/96 dated 9-1-1996 under sections 324/337-F (ii)/34; P.P.C. Of P.S. Thingi, District Vehari registered on the statement of Muhammad Arshad against the petitioner and his co-accused Khushi Muhammad and Zulfiqar for an occurrence which took place on 8-1-1996 at 11 p.m. In the area of Chak No,159/WB situated at a distance of 7 k.m. From the Police Station in which petitioner Muhammad Ikram allegedly inflicted Sota blow on the head of Maqsood Ahmad injured brother of the complainant. Zulfiqar co-accused also gave Sota blows on his left ankle and when Noor Ahmad servant of the complainant tried to intervene petitioner Muhammad Ikram also gave him Sota blows. The occurrence was witnessed by Said Hussain, Muhammad Ishaq and Noor Ahmad and the complainant.
2. The occurrence was the result of an earlier altercation and exchange of abuses between Muhammad Ikram petitioner and Maqsood Ahmad injured P.W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was innocent that Maqsood injured was discharged from the hospital after 9 days, that no offences under section 324/337-F(vi) were made out against the petitioner; that the case against the petitioner requires further inquiry with regard to the nature of offence and the participation of the petitioner in the occurrence and that the petitioner was in judicial lock-up for the last about 3 months and the provisions of section 344, Cr.P.C. Were violated and that the offences alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned State Counsel argued that the petitioner inflicted a serious head blow on the person of Maqsood Ahmad and that he also repeated blow by causing injury to Noor. Ahmad and that for so many days Maqsood injured P.W. Was not in a position to make a statement; that on receipt of final result, injury on the head of Maqsood Ahmad was found grievous and declared as Shaflah-i- Damighah and resultantly offence under section 337,A(vi) was' added and that the offences alleged against the petitioner fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel with care..
5. The occurrence took place at 11 p.m. And the mattcr was reported to the Police promptly within 4 hours with all material details. Injured Maqsood Ahmad was not in a position to make any statement on 15-1-1996, 17-1-1996 and 22-1-1996. According to the report of Dr. Sajjad Ahmad M.13.,13 S., Assistant RadiolOgist, Nishtar Hospital, Multan multiple fracture lines were visualized in the wall of the skull involving temporal bone. He has also observed multiple bone gaps which represented craniotomy operation marks.
6. The report of the Radiologist clearly indicates that Maqsood Ahmad injured received serious head injury and consequently the doctor declared this injury as Shajjah-e-Damighah.
' Section 337(3)(vi) provides that whoever causes shajjah: "By causing fracture of skull of the victim and the wound ruptures the membrane of brain is said to cause Shajja-i-Damighah and section 337- A(vi) prescribes that whoever by doing any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person causes (V) Shajjah-i-'Damighah to any person, shall be liable to Arsh which shall be half of Diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 14 years as Ta'zir."
7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in the presence of overwhelming medical evidence. The victim has to undergo operation in the hospital and after the operation of head of Maqsood Ahmad certain bone gaps were evident in the X-ray report. The membranes of the skull were cut and the froth was coming from the mouth of Maqsood Ahmad injured and he was feeling difficulty in breathing at the time of his medical examination.
8. The police during the investigation has added section 337-A(vi) and offences under sections 324 and 337-A(vi) fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The intention of the accused can be gathered from the weapon used, part of the body selected for causing injury and the nature of the injury itself. In this case the weapon used was lethal. The part of the body was a vital organ like head and nature of injury was of course serious. Prima facie there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for 10 ten years or more.
9. For what has been stated above, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed.
10. I would like to make it clear that all the observations made in this order are to be taken for the purpose of disposal of this bail petition alone and would have no bearing at the stage of trial. The learned trial Judge shall form his opinion on the basis of evidence produced before him.