MUHAMMAD WAHEED AKHTAR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal appeal where the petitioner, Muhammad Waheed Akhtar, convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, sought the suspension of his sentence pending appeal. The core legal question concerned whether a prima facie clash between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the nature and attribution of firearm injuries warrants the suspension of sentence. The court held that where an injury attributed to the accused on the back of the deceased may plausibly be an exit wound rather than an independent entry injury, the matter requires further consideration, thus establishing grounds for interim relief. Consequently, the court suspended the petitioner's sentence subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Whether suspension of sentence can be granted when there is an apparent clash between ocular and medical evidence?
- Does an injury alleged to be caused by the accused requiring further examination as to whether it is an entry or exit wound justify bail pending appeal?
- Is a convicted person entitled to suspension of sentence under Section 302(b) PPC when the prosecution's case presents arguable points for further consideration?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Mian Moored Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat has handed down this judgment while convicting m the petitioner/appellant Muhammad Waheed Akhtar under section 302(b), P.P.C. 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. The petitioner/appellant has now moved this application for suspension of sentence on the ground simplicitor that there was a clash between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, while elucidating his point learned counsel referred to the following portion of the judgment which is 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.
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 Kalashnikove which hit Nisar Afzal on his left shin. Then Waheed fired at Nisar which hit on his back.
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."
2. According to Dr. Tahir Naveed, the deceased Sahibzada Nisar Afzal sustained the following injuries:- 1-A A fire-arm wound of entry 2 x 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. 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.
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 right leg. B. Exit 2-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the medial surface.
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. 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 an exist wound and was not an independent injury ascribed to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Afzal and others v. State 1994 SCM R 453. 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 satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- NAZIR AHMED and another vs THE STATE and others 2014 PLD Supreme Court 241
- Nazir Ahmed and another vs The State, etc 2014 NLR Criminal 346, 2014 PSC (Crl.) 6