JUDGMENT RAJA ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI, J.- According to the contents of FIR No. 188. Dated 29.10.1994, Waris Masih petitioner-accused armed with Chhuri and Washim Joseph attacked Fayyaz Ahmad, a friend of the complainant. Wasim Joseph caught hold of the deceased. Fayyaz Ahmad, while Waris Masih inflicted a number of chhuri blows, on his person. Allegedly, the occurrence took place at 12.30 pm whereas the report was lodged at 2.50. Pm, the same day. Wasim Joseph is on to him by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that the complainant has suppressed the injuries received by Waris Masih petitioner and his mother. According to him. The deceased was aggressor. He inflicted the injuries on the person of Waris Masih and his mother whereas in self-defence he was attacked and met the fate. Learned counsel relies on the following cases:- PLD 1987 S.C. 385.. 1993 M LD 2357. 1987 S.C.M.R. 1417.
3. I have perused the facts of these cases. The case reported in PLD 1987 S.C. 385, deals with the trial whereas the case reported in 1993 M LD 2357 lays down the principle that question of self-defence can be considered for bail purposes. However, cogent and sufficient evidence is needed therefor.
4. The bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State vehemently. Learned counsel for the State submits that Waris Masih is a principal accused in this case. He inflicted number of sharp-edged injuries on the person of Fayyaz Ahmad deceased as a result of which he died, It is a day time occurrence, It was witnessed by a number of persons. During investigation, the petitioner was found guilty. Plea of self-defence was considered during investigation but the same was n6t accepted, Waris Masih petitioner has received a minor injury and there is no medicolegal report of his mother. Even there is no cross case. For all technical purposes, so far the cross-version has n6t properly been pursued. However, there is no bar but it may throw some light at the time of trial.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. Undoubtedly. Waris Masih petitioner is the accused who is responsible for the death of the deceased. Fie was armed with deadly weapon and caused number of injuries to the deceased which proved fatal, It is a day time occurrence. There is also some motive behind the commission of offence. Minor injury on the person ot the accused or accused party will not be a sufficient ground giving plea of self-defence.
Such an injury can be the result of some scuffle during fight. Undoubtedly, the plea of self- defence has a vital role in the occurrence. For that purpose, there should be sufficient and cogent evidence to come to the conclusion of giving allowance to the petitioner- accused. Here, in this case, the position is totally different.
In view of the above, I see no merit in this petition. Hence, it is dismissed. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of the case at the time of trial.