1. ' Bail application on behalf of the accused has been filed which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide order, dated 4-12-1996.
2. The brief story as stated by complainant Shaukat Ali with Police Station Larkana is to the effect that on 4-10-1995 complainant alongwith his son Aijaz Ali were present in their house when they heard cries coming fom the house of Abdul Ghafoor their relative who resides near their house.
3. Complainant, his son Aijaz and Mujeeb Rehman went running towards the house of Abdul Ghafoor where they found Mangho alias Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Usman son of Nawab Ali Mahar (present applicant/accused) and another unidentified person. Both the accused persons were armed with pistols. Accused Ghulam Hussian told cousin of the complainant namely Mst. Anwar Khatoon, that as she has refused to give the hand of her daughter (Miss Tasleem), therefore, she and her daughter should be ready for death, saying so he fired at Mst. Anwar Khatoon and Miss Tasleem. Mst. Anwar Khatoon after recieving fire-arm injuries fell down on the ground and died.
4. Miss Tasleem received the fire-arm injuries and tried to run away towards the room and that Muhammad Usman applicant/accused also fired at her which hit on her back and fell down on the ground. The accused persons threatened the complainant party not to come near to them as such they did not go near the accused persons, and therefore, accused persons went out of the house.
5. Mst. Anwar Khatoon was found dead, she was bleeding while Miss Tasleem was lying unconscious after receiving injuries and she was bleeding. Miss Tasleem was taken away to hospital for immediate treatment by P.W. Aijaz Ali and Mujeeb Rehman was asked to be with the dead body, therefore, complainant formally lodged the F.I.R. The motive assigned for the crime is that Miss Tasleem the injured medical student was demanded for marriage purpose by Mangho alias Ghulam Hussain but Mst. Anwar Khatoon the mother of Miss Tasleem refused to give the hand of her daughter to Mangho alias Ghulam Hussain being an uneducated. After lodging of the F.I.R. For an offence under sections 302, 324, Q.D.O. 34, 452, P.P.C. And 13-D, Arms Ordinance. Police started investigation, after finalization of the investigation police submitted challan against both the accused. After rejection of the bail application as mentioned hereinabove, hence this bail application.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro learned counsel for the applicant has contended that Mangho alias Ghulam Hussain has been assigned the role of firing of pistol shots with which Mst. Anwar Khatoon has died, whereas role assigned to Muhammad Usman present accused/applicant is that he has fired from his pistol which hit the injured Miss Tasleem on her back, that injuries so received by Mst.
7. Tasleem are not on the vital part of the body and that injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel has relied on (1) 1976 SCMR 168, (2) 1986 PCr.LJ 1894 and (3) 1987 PCr.LJ 276.
8. ' Mr. Riyaz Hussain Mughal, learned Assistant Advocate-General has stated that case has finally been challaned on 18-10-1995, recovery of unlicensed .32 bore pistol has been effected from the present accused/applicant on 14-10-1995, that P.Ws. In their 161 as well as in their 164, Cr.P.C.
9. Statements have implicated the present accused/applicant to have trespassed into the house of deceased Mst. Anwar Khatoon duly armed with pistol with the common object of all of them and in fuitherance of their common object fired, with the result of which Mst. Anwar Khatoon expired and MisS Tasleem received the injuries on her back. The medical reports are in positive, that from the place of Wardat 4 empties have also been recovered by the police on 14-10-1995 which were sealed in a parcel and has opposed the prayer for bail on behalf of accused/applicant.
10. ' Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto, learned counsel for complainant has adopted the arguments of learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh, and has further pointed out that injuries on the person of Miss Tasleem are on the vital part of the body and after receipt of the injuries Miss Tasleem is paralysed from waist down and will remain so for the remainder of her life. That the offence has been committed by the present accused alongwith co-accused in furtherance of their common intention by trespassing into the house of Mst. Anwar Khatoon by causing firearm injuries to Mst.
11. Anwar Khatoon and fire-arm injuries on the person of Miss Tasleem on the refusal of proposal of marriage. Applicant does not deserve the concession of bail.
12. ' I would like to discuss the case-law cited by Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro learned counsel for applicant.
(i) Ch. Muhammad Anwar Samma and others v. The State 1976 SCMR 168. The facts of this case are that only allegation against the petitioner was that he caused injuries by kicks to the complainant.
13. Though according to F.I.R. He was armed with staingun, but even there was no allegation 'that any blow with the butt of staingun was struck by the petitioner. Furthermore according to complainant's own statement in F.I.R. After he was released by the accused party, complainant walked to G.T.
14. Road and then returned to Wazirabad by Bus, which supports the contention. This also does not show that he was so grievously injured. That he was not in a position to be able to move about.
15. ' On the consideration that kicks blows were attributed to the applicant/accused and though he was armed with staingun but even butt of the staingun was not used and complainant himself proceeded to G.T. Road and they returned to Wazirabad by bus. On the face of it with due respect I say that this authority is not relevant to the facts of the present case. Whereas in the case in hand specific role of firing at the injured Miss Tasleem a medical student has been attributed to the applicant/accused.
(ii) Iftikhar Ahmad v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 1894: In this case appellant was convicted for causing murder of Ghulam Dastagir by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for an offence under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. And was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. For a term of six months each.
16. Learned Judge of Lahore High Court after discussing the evidence by the trial Court and hearing learned counsel for the parties was pleased to accept the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. This case-law is quite different and distinguishable, inasmuch as, the matter in this Court is pending for decision of bail application. The evidence has not yet been recorded by the trial Court.
(iii) Jan Muhammad and 2 others v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 276: In this matter injured received two injuries, one was grievous on head and the other was simple one on hand and the contention of the learned counsel for applicant before learned Judge was that both the injuries were result of one blow as the injured wanted to ward off the blow so injured received injury on his hand. The State also raised no objection for the grant of bail and the bail was accordingly granted by the Court. I am afraid, this authority in any case is not relevant to the present matter in which accused/applicant is alleged to have acted with the common object to cause the death of Mst.
17. Anwar Khatoon and also caused pistol shots at Miss Tasleem Khatoon. The result of which is that after receipt of injuries which according to medical report are as follows:--
(1) Lacerated punctured wound about 4 c.m. Long x 1 c.m. Breath x superficial on front peritol region of scalp (through and through).
18. (2-A) Lacerated wound punctured wound about 1 c.m. In diameter x deep muscle on posterior aspect of right forearm (entry wound).
19. (2-B)Lacerated punctured wound about 2 c.m. In diameter on anterior aspect of right forearm (exit of injury No,2-A).
20. (3-A) Lacerated punctured wound about 1 c.m. In diameter x deep cavity. Right side at mid theracic spina (entry wound).
21. (3-B)Lacerated punctured wound about 2 c.m. In diameter on right side of breast antero-lateral aspect (exit of injury 3-A).
22. (4-A) Lacerated punctured wound about 1 c.m. In diameter x deep cavity on left lumbar region.
23. Posterior aspect (entry wound).
24. (4-B)Lacerated punctured wound about 2 c.m. In diameter on right side of supra pubic (exit of injury No,4-A).
25. ' Nature of injuries: 1 Shajjah-i-Khafifah.
26. ' Caused by: fire-arm.
2. Jurah Ghayr Jaifah Damiyya 3 and 4 reserved.
27. ' Thereafter, injured was referred for treatment to Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi where she was examined by Dr. Rashid Jooma, who issued certificate, which reads as under:-- "Miss Tasleem Fatima, aged 25 years, received a fire-arm injury to her spinal cord on 14th October, 1995. She was treated in Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi for her injuries, being discharged on 2-6-1996. She is paralyzed from waist down and will remain so for the remainder of her life."
28. As such this authority in my humble opinion is not favorable to the case of applicant/accused. I have gone through the material placed with the case. Due to refusal of Mst. Anwar Khatoon mother of Miss Tasleem injured a Medical Student to give her in marriage as demanded by Mangho alias Ghulam Hussain the accused/applicant in furtherance of their common object both have trespassed into the house of complainant armed with pistol fired at deceased and while Miss Tasleem P.W. Tried to save her life was caused pistol shots by the present applicant/accused with the result that she received injuries on her spinal cord and unfortunately as a result of which she is paralysed from waist down and will remain so for the rest of her life. Contention of learned counsel is that injured has received simple injuries which are not on the vital part of the body and/or rather are not borne out from the record and contrary supports the case of prosecution. Incident is that of day time which has taken place at about 7-00 a.m., F.I.R. Was lodged promptly on the same day at 7-25 a.m. Police directly inspected the Wardat and also recovered 4 empties from the Wardat which were sealed in separate parcel by the police. Eye-witness Mujeeb Rehman, Aijaz Ali and Miss Tasleem were examined by police, subsequently they were examined by Magistrate and their 164, Cr.P.C. Statements were recorded in which they have implicated the present accused/applicant, to have fired with pistol and that Mst. Tasleem received pistol shot injuries. P. Ws. Were cross- examined by the accused, nothing substantial has come out from the cross-examination. Police has also recovered unlicensed revolver of .32 bore on the potation of present accused/applicant on 24-10-1994 at the time of arrest. The accused have since been charged-sheeted by the police.
29. In view of the evidence so collected, by the police mentioned hereinabove, prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused is guilty of offence for which he has been challaned.
30. The application is devoid of merit/substances which accordingly is dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by short order, I have rejected bail application today. These are the reasons for the same.