MUHAMMAD WAHEED AKHTAR and others vs STATE
This criminal matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Waheed Akhtar, who was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending appeal, based on the contention that there existed a significant discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased. Specifically, the defense argued that the injury attributed to the petitioner on the back of the deceased was actually an exit wound, rather than an independent injury as alleged by the prosecution. Upon reviewing the medical report and the ocular account, the Court found that the matter regarding the petitioner's specific culpability required further consideration. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for relief and ordered the suspension of his sentence, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Whether a sentence can be suspended pending appeal when there is a potential discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence?
- Does an alleged exit wound being misidentified as an independent entry wound constitute grounds for further consideration in a bail application?
- Can the appellate court suspend a sentence of life imprisonment based on a prima facie case of evidentiary inconsistency?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J.--Mian Moored Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat has handed down this judgment while convicting the petitioner/appellant Muhammad Waheed Akhtar under Section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs, 50,000 and in case of default to undergo 6 months' S. I. Benefit of Section 382-B,Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner.
2. 2.The petitioner/appellant has now moved this application for suspension of sentence on the ground simpliciter that there was a clash between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence while elucidating his point learned counsel referred to the following portions of the judgment which are reproduced below: "Dildar alias Dudu raised Lalkara that since Nisar Afzal was asked to get effected compromise in between the accused and Khizar Hayat but he did not do so hence he should be taught a lesson.
3. Nisar Afzal (deceased) ran away from the spot towards west. The accused chased him. Gulzar alias Gulla fired at left shin of the deceased. Dildar alias Dudu accused fired straight with his kalashnikov which hit. Nisar Afzal on his left shin. Then Waheed fired at Nisar which hit on his back.
4. After receipt of injuries Nisar Afzal fell down in the Haveli of Muhammad Afzal. Mukhtar alias Mehra fired with 8 mm. Rifle which hit the deceased at right side of neck. Then Kashif fired with his .222 bore rifle, which landed on right thigh of the deceased. Nisar Afzal sustained serious injuries."
5. 2-A. According to Dr. Tahir Naveed, the deceased Sahibzada Nisar Afzal sustained the following injuries: "1-A. A fire-arm wound of entry 2 x 1/2 c.m. x 2 x 1/2 c.m. with blackening half around it and on right side of neck. Burning 2 c.m. x 7 c.m. on right middle of shoulder.
6. B.Fire-arm wound of exit 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the back in the middle and right to vertical column at scapular level.
7. 2-A. Fire-arm wound of entry 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the lower 1/3 junction on the interior surface on tight leg.
8. B.Exit 2-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the medial surface.
9. 3-A. Fire-arm wound of entry 13 c.m. x 6 c.m. on the medial side of left leg below the left knee joint.
10. B.Fire-arm wound of exit 13 c.m. x 4 c.m. on the lateral side of left leg on and below the left knee joint.
3. It is said that the injury found at the back of the deceased Sahibzada Nisar Afzal is in fact exit wound and was not independent injury ascribed to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Afzal and others v. State 1994 PSC (Crl.)
175. Consequently, the matter as far as the petitioner concerned, is one which requires further consideration. We accordingly suspend the sentence of the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the I satisfaction of the learned trial Court.