MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking the suspension of a death sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court. The core legal question is whether the sentence of a convict sentenced to death can be suspended and bail granted pending the appeal, particularly where ineffective firing is attributed to the accused and the injured witness does not attribute the injury to him. The Lahore High Court held that a case for suspension of sentence is made out, observing that the petitioner was only attributed firing in the air, the injured person did not attribute the injury to him, and it would be too harsh to keep the petitioner in the death cell pending a delayed appeal. The court laid down the principle that where eye-witness accounts and injured testimonies prima facie cast doubt on the attribution of a fatal or specific injury, and the appeal is likely to take a long time, the sentence of death may be suspended and the convict enlarged on bail.
- Whether the sentence of death can be suspended and bail granted pending the hearing of an appeal?
- Does a case for suspension of sentence arise when an accused is only attributed firing in the air and the injured person does not attribute the injury to him?
ORDER
The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 18.3.2004 whereby the petitioner Shoaib alias Labha son of Muhammad Sarwar was convicted and sentenced to death.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner by the P.Ws and the learned trial Court drew wrong inference and passed sentence of death.
3. The learned Counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that death sentence cannot be suspended.
4. We have heard the submissions of both the learned Counsel, called for the original record and examined the same.
5. P.W.1 and P.W. 2 have furnished the eye witnesses account. P.W. 1 stated that Shafqat and Shoaib (present petitioner) accused were firing in the air and their fire shots injured a young boy namely Basit. P.W. 2 also stated that present petitioner while firing in the air ran away from the spot and from the firing a boy namely Basit was injured. Basit Younis was examined as P.W.
17. He did not attribute his injury to any one.
6. From the tentative examination of the eye-witness account and the statement of P.W. 17 Basit Younis, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is attributed firing in the air and that the injured Basit has not attributed his injury to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is fit for reconsideration. It would be too harsh to keep the petitioner in the death cell till the hearing of the appeal, which is likely to take along time. We are of the view that case is made out for suspension of sentence of the petitioner. Accordingly, we suspend the sentence of the petitioner and enlarge him on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.