' On 21-7-1975, at about 6-30 a.m., the petitioner and his co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Faqir Muhammad deceased intentionally and attempted on the life of Muhammad Amin P. W. The deceased was caused eleven injuries. Injury No, 6 consisted of three abrasions while injury No, 9 consisted of multiple wounds. Injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were caused with sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt weapon. Injuries Nos. 4 and 5 were found grievous. Injuries Nos. 2 and 11, which caused intracranial haemorrhage were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The petitioner was armed with a stick and he had inflicted stick blows to the deceased as well as to Mohammad Amin P. W. The doctor found two grievous injuries with blunt weapon on the person of Muhammad Amin P. W., one was fracture of right parietal bone while the other was fracture of right ulna bone. Shams Din co-accused was armed with a stick. He had also inflicted stick blows to the deceased and Muhammad Amin P. W., Abdul Latif and Ghulam Jillani co-accused caused injuries to the deceased and also to Muhammad Amin P. W. With hatchets. The case was registered on the same day at 7-30 a.m., on the statement of Sultan.
2. The motive for the present occurrence was that Abdul Latif and Ghulam Jillani by constructing a wall in the lane had narrowed the way leading to the houses of Faqir Muhammad deceased and Muhammad Amin P. W. Some days before the present occurrence Abdul Latif co-accused had picked up a quarrel with the deceased and Muhammad Amin P. W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only two injuries with blunt weapon had been found on the person of Muhammad Amin P. W. And this fact belied the prosecution story as according to the complainant Abdul Latif and Ghulam Jillani had inflicted one hatchet blow each to Muhammad Amin P. W. That according to the complainant Shams Din and Ghulam Rasool had inflicted stick blows to Muhammad Amin P. W. On the back and this version was also found to be incorrect as Muhammad Amin P. W. Had no injury on his back. It was also argued that the complainant could not know about the death of Faqir Muhammad the deceased was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, in an injured condition.
4. According to the complainant, the petitioner was armed with a stick and he inflicted stick blows to the deceased. This version is corroborated by the medical evidence as more than nine injuries with blunt weapon had been caused to the deceased. The petitioner and Shams Din co-accused.
They were stated to be armed with sticks and they had inflicted stick blows to the deceased. The fact that only two injuries with blunt weapon were found on the person of Mohammad Amin P. W.
Would not show that a false case had been made out against the petitioner. It would be seen after the witnesses are examined in Court as to which of the accused were responsible for causing injuries to Muhammad Amin P. W. It was a day time occurrence. The report was lodged soon after the occurrence. The name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F. I. R. He had inflicted stick blows to the deceased which version is corroborated by the medical evidence. The complainant disclosed in the F. I. R. That when the deceased and Muhammad Amin P. W. Were being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, which had been arranged by the people. Faqir Muhammad expired on the way.
He further disclosed in the F. I. R. That the dead bodies of Faqir Muhammad and Muhammad Amin P. W. Were taken to the hospital in the ambulance. It appears from the F. I. R. That the complainant after the death of Faqir Muhammad left for the Police Station and lodged the report. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life. It not a fit case for the grant of bail. The bail petition is dismissed.