NASIR MEHMOOD vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal against his conviction under Section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the evidence relied upon by the trial court—including last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, and recoveries—was not proven. The State opposed the application, contending that the court could not reappraise evidence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon review, the Court noted that the trial court itself had disbelieved the extra-judicial confession and found the motive to be unknown. Furthermore, the Court observed that 'last seen' evidence is a weak form of circumstantial evidence. Finding that the petitioner had established a prima facie case for relief, the Court held that the conviction and sentence should be suspended. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial court's findings on key evidence are contradictory?
- Is 'last seen' evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without strong corroboration?
- Does the disbelief of an extra-judicial confession by the trial court constitute grounds for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Section 302-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---Through this Criminal Miscellaneous No,27-M of 2006 Nasir Mehmood son of Muhammad Riasat petitioner seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 17-1-2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujjar Khan the appellant was convicted under section 302-B, P.P.C. And sentenced to life imprisonment. It was ordered that he shall pay Rs,3,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation it was ordered that he will undergo six months' imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him.
3. In para.28 of the judgment impugned, the Court has also relied upon the following pieces of evidence:-
(i) Last seen evidence.
(ii) Extra-Judicial confession of the accused.
(iii) Recoveries of empty from the place of occurrence and pistol from the accused.
(iv) Medical evidence.
(v) Report of F.S.L. And CE.
Learned counsel contends that the above said evidence has not been proved on record.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the learned State counsel contends that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner needs reappraisal of evidence which exercise cannot be done by the Court under section 426, Cr.P.C.
5. Contention of the learned A.A.-G. Is not well founded because the Court in its judgment at page 14 paragraph 31 itself recorded the finding:- ' "Extra-Judicial confession made the accused is disbelieved due to want of evidence."
6. Regarding motive, at page 13 in paragraph 14, the Court held "The motive behind the occurrence is unknown". Last seen evidence---Evidence of deceased having been last seen alive in company of accused---A weak type of circumstantial evidence of basing conviction. See the case of Naqibullah and another v. The State (PLD 1978 SC 21). The medical evidence, the report of the F.S.L.
And the Chemical Examiner's report are the corroborative pieces of evidence.
7. For what has been discussed, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has successfully made out a case of suspension of sentence. This being so, the application is allowed and the conviction/sentence recorded by the trial Court is suspended.
8. The petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.