| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Murder accused injures complainant |
| 2015-02-12 |
| A murder accused allegedly shot at and injured the complainant after the police changed the sections of the case and termed it an accident. Younis shot at Muhammad Waqas, a resident of Chowk Haji Sharif, Rangeelpur, when he was standing outside his house on Monday night. Waqas suffered three bullet injuries and was shifted to the Nishtar Hospital where doctors declared his condition out of danger. Shah Shams police SHO Saeed Gujjar said the victim party had not submitted application to the police for registration of a case so far. He said the victim was complaining that injustice had been done to his family in the past but he (Gujjar) could not say anything as he was not the SHO when the case begun. Waqas' brother Muhammad Qasim was killed on Feb 9, 2014 and a case (FIR No108/14) under section 302/34 was lodged with the Shah Shams police against Muhammad Younis and Muhammad Nadeem. According to the FIR, Younis killed Qasim for stopping him from teasing women working in field. The complainant alleged that Nadeem, who was a security guard at a rice factory, gave his repeater gun to Younis who shot dead his brother. On April 10, 2014, Additional District and Sessions Judge Humairatul Zahra granted post-arrest bail to Younis. The counsel said the petitioner was 11 years old and being minor was entitled to bail under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. During the investigation, offence under section 302 of PPC had been deleted as the investigation officer found that at the most offence under section 322/109 PPC was made out. In her decision, the judge stated that although ipse dixit of the police was not binding upon the court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the same couldn't be brushed aside. 'Moreover, it is yet to be determined at the trial as to whether the petitioner has intentionally committed the murder of the deceased or not. All these facts make it a case of further probe and inquiry,' the court stated. |
| Posted by:Fred |