MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs THE STATE
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Tariq, seeking the suspension of his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that he was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence and should have been sentenced under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contending that he had already served a period exceeding the maximum punishment prescribed therein. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the merits of the conviction, citing contradictions in the ocular account and doubtful recovery. The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the conviction at the bail stage, reserving those issues for the final appeal. However, noting that the petitioner had served a substantial portion of his sentence and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and granted him bail pending the final disposal of the appeal.
- Can the sentence of a convict be suspended pending appeal if the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future?
- Does the fact that a convict has served a substantial portion of their sentence entitle them to suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Should the merits of a conviction, such as contradictions in ocular evidence, be decided at the stage of suspension of sentence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---The petitioner, Muhammad Tariq, was involved in case bearing F.I.R.
No,393 of 1997, dated 26-11-1997, under section 302/34 P.P.C., and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who vide his judgment dated 14-12-1998, awarded him life imprisonment, under section 302(b), P.P.C. He was further directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. For non-payment of the same he was to further undergo for six months as S . I .
2. Through this application, the petitioner seeks suspension of his conviction and sentence, as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the time of occurrence, was 15 years of age and he should have been convicted under section 308, P.P.C. Instead of section 302(b), P.P.C. Further submits that section 308, P.P.C. Is punishable with imprisonment of 14 years and the present petitioner has already undergone this sentence of 17/18 years. Relies on Abdul Razzaq v. The State (1999 PCr.R 1012 (Lahore)). Further submits that the motive has not been proved; that there is major contradiction in the ocular account and that recovery is doubtful.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed this petition.
5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant regarding contradictions in the ocular account and others shall be seen at the time of disposal of the main appeal.However according to the report of jail authorities, the petitioner/appellant has already served a substantial portion of his sentence and his unexpired portion of sentence out of 25 years is only 6 years and appeal is not likely to be fixed in near future. This aspect entitles the petitioner for suspension of his sentence. Reliance is placed upon "Khan Muhammad Mahar v. The State"
(2003 SCM R 22), "Muhammad Azam and others v. The State" (2003 M LD 1731) and "Muhammad Hanif and another v. The State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau, Karachi" (2003 PCr.LJ 161).
6. In the light of what has been stated above, while accepting this petition, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM QADIR alias AZEEM and another vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1948