MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and otherss/Appellants vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentences awarded to the petitioners following their conviction under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether the sentences, which were not explicitly ordered to run consecutively, should be treated as concurrent, thereby rendering them short in duration, and whether such circumstances justify the suspension of the sentence pending the hearing of the appeal. The Court held that in the absence of an explicit order for consecutive sentences, the sentences are deemed to be concurrent. Consequently, given that the petitioners had already undergone a substantial portion of their sentences and the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future, the Court determined that the appeal would be rendered infructuous if the petitioners served the full term before the appeal's adjudication. The key principle laid down is that where sentences are not ordered to run consecutively, they are concurrent, and the suspension of a sentence is warranted when the unserved portion is brief and the appeal is unlikely to be heard promptly.
- Are sentences deemed to be concurrent if the trial court does not explicitly order them to run consecutively?
- Does the likelihood of an appeal becoming infructuous due to the short duration of the unserved sentence justify the suspension of that sentence?
- Can a sentence be suspended if the convict has already undergone a substantial portion of the awarded term?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.---This is an application for suspension of sentence awarded to the petitioners vide judgment dated 28-2-2005. The petitioners were tried under sections 324/334/337F(iv)/337-F(iii)/148/149, P.P.C. And were sentenced as under:-- ' Appellant No.1 Sentenced to three years' R.I. Under section 324, P.P.C., under section 337-F(iii) two years' R.I. And 1 year's R.I. Under sections 148/149, P.P.C.
' Appellant No.2 Sentenced to 3 years' R.I. Under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C., 3 years' R.I. Under section 324, P.P.C. And 1 year's R.I. Under sections 148/149, P.P.C.
' Appellant No.3 Sentenced under section 324 to 3 year's R.I. Under section 337F(iii) two years' R.I.
And under sections 148/149, P.P.C. To 1 year's S.I.
' Appellant No.4. Sentenced under section 334, P.P.C., 3 years' R.I. Under section 324, P.P.C. 3 years' R.I.
And under sections 148/149, P.P.C. To 1 year's R.I.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court has not awarded the sentences to the petitioners/appellants consecutively. In the absence of such a condition, it will be deemed that the sentences are concurrent in nature against all the petitioners/appellants. It is submitted that this being so, the sentences are short. The petitioners/ appellants have already undergone a major portion of their sentences there is no likelihood of the appeal to be heard in near future. It is prayed that the sentences may be suspended.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it is found that sentences awarded to the petitioners/appellants are short. As the petitioners have undergone a substantial portion of their sentences, the -unserved portion of the sentences are brief within which time it is not likely that the appeal shall be taken up for regular hearing. In case the petitioners served out the sentences before the appeal is heard, the same shall be rendered infructuous.In this view of the matter, the sentences of all the petitioners are suspended. The petitioners shall be released if not required in any other case subject to furnishing of bail bonds each in the sum of Rs.30,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.