KHAN RIAZ-UD-DIN AHMAD J.- Intizar Ali petitioner seeks his bail after arrest in case FIR No. 21/97 of 27.2.1997 under Sections 302/34, 324 PPC registered at PS Shah Bhore at the instance of one Rana Muhammad Safdar.
2. Briefly the facts of the case as gleaned from the FIR are that on 27.2.1997 at 10 a.m. The complainant alongwith his cousin Zafar Iqbal was going to vards his lands, when they reached on the backside of the mosque, Gulzar Ali ar. Ned with 12 bore gun, and Intizar Ali armed with 222 rifle turned up at the spot. Gi Izar Ali find at Zafar Iqbal, hitting him at his fore head and right arm. He ran towards his house raising alarm which attracted Khizar Hayat who came out of his house. Intizar Ali, then opened fire hitting him on the chest. He fell down and succumbed to his injury on his way to Civil Hospital Okara. The motive for the alleged occurrence was stated to be the previous enmity over litigation between the parties.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 4.3.1997. He had applied for his bail but the same was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara on 15.7.1997. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the ocular evidence to be led by the prosecution stands belied by the post-mortem report which reveals that a pellet was recovered from the injury which was alleged to have been caused by a shot find with 222 rifle.
According to the learned counsel, this fact alone was sufficient to allow bail to-the petitioner.
Reliance in this respect was placed on Ali Ahmad v. The State (K.L.R. 1997 Cr. Cases 162) and Jan Muhammad alias Janoo v. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J. 541).
5. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the State have strenuously opposed the application by submitting that the only injury found on the person of the deceased was caused by a bullet, because a stray pellet would not have caused the injury of the-nature as mentioned in the post-mortem report.-It was further submitted that the version of the prosecution was supported by the eye-witnesses and the recovery witnesses of 222 rifle, recovered at the instance of the petitioner, as such, the medical evidence, which is confirmatory or explanatory of the direct evidence would not effect adversely the case of the prosecution at this stage. Reliance in this regard was placed on Ghulam Mehdi v. The State (1991 S.C.M.R. 60) and Sanatta and another v.
The State (198 S.C.M.R. 208).
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
7. To better appropriate the contention $f the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to have a look at the disputed injury which according to the prosecution was caused by a shot find by a 222 rifle while the defence alleges the same to have been the result of the shot find by 12 bore gun. For convenience the description of the injury as it appears in post-mortem report is reproduced below:- "A lacerated wound 172 x 1/2 c.m. Circular in shape going deep with inverted and blackened margins on front and upper part of right side of chest."
8. The dimension of the injury and its nature, if examined critically would reveal that this injury was so serious as the same, proved sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the. Ordinary course of nature. Its dimension also discloses that the metal which had pierced the body of the deceased had lot of force behind it as the same had caused single aperture with maximum damage to the internal organs, which normally would not have been the result of striking of the single stray pellet.
I. Therefore, do not feel persuaded to believe that there was any contradiction in the ocular evidence qua the medical evidence.
9. Besides this, the case of the prosecution stands supported by the statement of the eye- witnesses including one Zafar Iqbal who was injured during the occurrence. All these PWs have stated with one voice that the petitioner was armed with 222 rifle and had find a shot at the deceased hitting him straight in the chest in Consequence of which he succumbed to his injury when he was being shifted to the hospital. Moreover the said rifle was recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation and the same was sent to the Ballistic Expert, who could not ascertain as to when the said rifle was lastly find. I have given my anxious consideration on this report but I do not think if the said report will have any fatal adverse effects on the case of the prosecution as both medical evidence or the Expert report would be entirely in the nature of confirmatory or explanatory of direct or other circumstantial evidence. This view gets support from the observation made by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ghulam Mehdi v.
The State, cited supra which is as follows:- "It is well established that expert evidence, may it be medical or that of a Ballistic Expert is entirely in the nature of confirmatory or explanatory of direct or other circumstantial evidence. But if there is direct evidence as in die instant case which is definite, forthright and at the same time creditworthy, confirmatory evidence is not of much significance. It cannot, at any rate, outweigh the direct evidence unless it is for any reason deficient in quality."
8. I have also gone through the case-law cited at the bar by the learned- counsel for the petitioner, the same being distinguishable was not on all fours with the facts and circumstances of this case.
9. Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner stands connected with the charges alleged against him, as such he was not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.
10. Under the above circumstances and without going deep into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the cause of either side, I decline to allow bail to v. The petitioner. Consequently his petition for bail merits dismissal, which is accordingly dismissed.