1. ' This is a bail application filed by the accused in connection with Crime No,48 of 1999 of Police Station, Dakhan where they have been charged under sections 302 and 337-H(ii) Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and 114, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C., and 13-D, Arms Ordinance.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that Haji Mazar Khan is a resident of Dittal Khan village Jalbani and according to him his grand daughter was married with Ayaz Ali son of Ahafi Muhammad Jalbani resident of village Jhangal Wahan about two years prior to the incident. No child was born. About a month before the date of incident which is 3-6-1999 Guhram son of Sanwlo Jalbani and others had levelled false-allegation of Karap upon his grand daughter with Gulzar son of Farid Ahmed by caste Lashari. The complainant brought his grand daughter to his house where she was residing. On 3-6-1999 the complainant alongwith his son Shahzado, nephew Rustam, grand daughter Mst. Tahseen and other family members were present when at about 8-15 hours in the morning a car drove up from which driver Sartaj son of Abdul Fatah Udho alighted accompanied with Guhram son of Sawan with hatchet, Bego son of Pathan with gun, Zahid s/o Allah Rakhio with T.T. Pistol, Ghani Abdul Ghani with hatchet and entered in his house. They gave Hakal that Mst. Tahseen is a Kari and they have come to kill her. The complainant's daughter tried to run away on which accused Guhram, Zahid Hussain, Ghani @ Abdul Ghani instigated to other accused to murder her. Accused Guhram caused hatchet injury due to which she fell down on the ground and cried. Then the other accused persons brought Mst. Tahseen out of the room and all together beat her. They then went away in car. Mst. Tahseen was brought to Ratodero Hospital where she died.
3. The F.I.R., was lodged against accused persons at about 11-45 hours.
4. ' The accused were arrested and were charged under the relevant sections after due investigation and challan was also submitted. The application for bail was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Shikarpur which was rejected and against this order the accused have come to this Court with this application for grant of bail.
5. ' They have, inter alia, contended that they are innocent and there is enmity between the complainant and the accused and that no overt act has been assigned to them in the F.I.R. In fact only presence has been shown.
6. Mere presence of the accused at the place of Vardat cannot connect them with the offence. The counsel for the accused has also made oral submissions where he has pleaded that no empty was recovered and only hatchet was recovered. He has also pleaded that there is a differences between the oral and medical evidence. He has also pointed out that there is a delay in recording of a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., and, therefore, his clients could not be arrested because of that. He has relied on PLD 1965 W.P. (Karachi) 76, 1993 SCMR 550, 1996 SCMR 1125, PLD 1996 SC 241 and PLD 1989 SC 347.
7. ' The counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail very strongly and he has pointed out that the accused have been nominated in the F.I.R. It is day light incident and specific role has been assigned to them. The accused have not denied their presence and it is clear that entry into the house of complainant was with the intents and purposes of all of them to kill Mst. Tahseen. Prima facie the intention is very clear. The counsel has also drawn my attention to the Mashirnama of the scene of offence which has been prepared by A.S.-I. Umaruddin Siddiqui. This Mashirnama shows huge quantity of blood in the courtyard and dragging signs on the ground which confirms story of the complainant that the accused persons dragged Mst.
8. Tahseen from the room into the courtyard. The counsel has also relied on 1999 PCr.LJ 1 and 1996 SCMR 555.
9. ' I have considered all aspects of the case and have gone in detail through the record. The concept of declaring a person as Kari and jointly or singly killing her is deplorable. No person has a right to take the life of another person and above all no person howsoever good or bad should decide that due to sudden pre-conceived notions and set allegations, without confirmation, and without giving the other person a chance to disprove the allegations should the persons so accused be disposed of in so heinous a manner which is against all norms which should be prevalent in a society believing in justice and equity. Should this happen in an Islamic Country and above all by the followers of Islam. Do we profess to follow the dictates of our religion which suit us and discard others. This is done at the cost of other principles which we conveniently chose to ignore to the extent that we almost believe that they do not exist. A point in issue is the treatment of a woman and her rights. Islam teaches tolerance and equal rights. Islam is a religion of justice and fairplay. It is a religion which has championed the cause of human rights at a time when its concept was not thought off anywhere else. The systematic humiliation that is inflicted upon a woman especially in the rural areas and the very casual way in which she is killed speaks volumes of the age in which we are living in. In most cases where individuals are accused of Karo and Kari more than one person is involved in the ultir,, ate humiliation and degration of a woman. She is treated as a chattel and disposed of. When the actual incident takes place where one or more persons are gathered together with the common intents and purposes, the fatal shot or final blow of the hatchet is always the act of an individual, but we should not overlook the fact that all others who had accompanied the person who were instrumental in killing the person be absolved of collective responsibility. Such heinous crimes should be discouraged at all costs and if an accused insists that he was only present at the place of Vardat the question would arise is that what was he doing there. Attempt should have been made by them to stop the occurrence of the crime and if they did not do so then should not they be held collectively responsible.
10. It would be up to the trial Court to decide after recording of evidence who in fact is guilty out of the number of accused and who is not. For the purposes of grant of bail, I do not think that the accused have made out a case which would require consideration. It is accordingly dismissed.