' The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.1.R. No,4 of 1998 dated 9-1-1998 under section 302/109/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Phularwan, Teshil Bhalwal, District Sargodha.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 8-1-1998, Mst. Ghulam Fatima had gone to water tap to fetch water. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Amir alias Khan son of Muhammad Khan armed with his father's licenced 12 bore gun came there and fired at the deceased hitting at her back. She fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is further alleged that Azam, lqbal, Shabbir also instigated the accused/petitioner to kill the complainant Mst. Nusrat as such she rushed towards her house and save her life. On her cries, it is alleged, Muhammad Inayat, Noor and Nazir were attracted who witnessed the incident. Motive behind this occurrence is stated to be the refusal on the part of deceased to give the hand of her daughter of Azam son of Fateh Muhammad.
3. The petitioner applied for bail, but he was not granted the said relief by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sargodha vide order dated 27-6-1998, hence this petition.
4. Bail has been sought mainly on the ground that the petitioner is a minor, as such his case falls within the first proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relief upon birth certificate as well as school leaving certificate, where his date of birth has been recorded as 29-12-1983 and 25-1-1984 respectively. He further submits that as the petitioner is minor, so his case falls within the purview of section 306, P.P.C., which is punishable under section 308, P.P.C., wherein the maximum punishment provided is 14 years. He next urged that in similar case, the relief of bail has been allowed and relied upon Mazhar Abbas v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 1635) and Usman Ali v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 166). He thus submitted that petition may be accepted.
5. Conversely, the contentions have been repudiated by learned counsel for the State. He has submitted as per Investigating Officer, the age of petitioner is 18 or 19 years as such he cannot be considered a minor, that both the certificates referred above contain different date of birth as such no reliance can be placed on such certificates, that the only fatal injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He, thus, submitted that all these facts disentitle him to the relief sought by him.
6. A perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that the petitioner was armed with a 12 bore licenced gun of his father at the time of causing a fatal shot to the deceased Mst. Ghulam Fatima, mother of the complainant Mst. Nusrat. The bail has been sought mainly on the ground that the petitioner is less than 18 years of age, as such his case falls within first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And consequently his case covers under section 306, P.P.C. Which is punishable under section 308, P.P.C., where the maximum punishment provided is 14 years. To support the plea of minority he has relied upon birth certificate as well as school leaving certificate of the petitioner. A perusal of these certificates reveals that both these certificates contain two different dates of birth. Thus, under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on these certificates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1997 PCr.LJ 1635 wherein the authority reported as 1996 PCr.LJ 166) has been relied upon. In 1996 PCr.LJ 166, the part attributed to the so-called accused of tender age was a proverbial Lalkara and was shown to be armed with a soti and had not caused any injury to any person. In the instant case, the only fatal shot is attributed to the present petitioner as a result of which deceased was done to death on the spot. Again in the said authority there was no discrepancy or contradiction in the certificates regarding the actual date of birth of said accused.
Thus, the facts of that authority are not applicable to the facts of this case. In absence of any concrete and positive evidence regarding the age of petitioner in the form of ossification or other tests, no reliance can be placed on such contradictory certificates.
7. Keeping in view the facts stated above coupled with the fact that petitioner has been charged for causing fatal blow to the deceased, I am not inclined to extend the relief sought by him at this stage. Resultantly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.