GULAB MAHESAR vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 20 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GULAB MAHESAR VS State S. 498-a---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 322/34---Voluntarily causing grievous hurt, common intention--- Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of--- Further inquiry---Inordinate delay in lodging of FIR---Brother of complainant was electrocuted due to broken wires of electric poles---Record showed that the alleged incident took place on 20.7.2018, whereas FIR was lodged on 15.4.2019 by complainant, after the delay of about 8 months, for which no satisfactory explanation had been furnished---Whether the incident took place in a manner as alleged in the FIR or otherwise was yet to be determined by Trial Court---Case of the complainant was that accused persons were responsible for the alleged incident---Case had been challaned and the accused were no more required for investigation---Civil suit for recovery of compensation had also been filed by the legal heirs of deceased against Electric Supply Company and the accused persons, which was pending before the civil court---Death Certificate of the deceased did not show that any postmortem of the deceased was conducted to determine the cause of death---No eye-witness had been cited in the FlR to witness the event---Case had been challaned under Ss. 322 & 34, P.P.C.---Section 322, P.P.C., though non-bailable yet was not punishable with any period of imprisonment besides the payment of Diyat---Whether punishment of payment of Diyat amount, would bring the case of accused persons within the compass of the prohibitory clause attached to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. or whether S. 322, P.P.C., would be applicable in the present case was yet to be determined---Punishment provided for the offence under S. 322, P.P.C., was only Diyat and under S. 319, P.P.C., in addition to Diyat punishment as Taazir, was five years imprisonment---High Court observed that law on the point was silent as to whether the punishment of Diyat would fall under the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., or not---One could not be kept in jail or sent to jail for a matter which still required further probe as to whether it was an offence of qatl-e-khata/qatl-e-bissabab or an intentional act of accused---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons was confirmed, in circumstances.

GULAB MAHESAR vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 20 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported