TARIQ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, filed by the petitioner, Tariq, seeking suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The petitioner was convicted under Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for causing the disappearance of evidence related to a triple murder and was sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having served a significant portion of his sentence and not being convicted of the primary homicide charge, was entitled to the suspension of his sentence given the unlikely prospect of an early hearing of his appeal. The Court held that since the petitioner had already undergone nearly half of his sentence and the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future due to heavy docket pendency, the sentence should be suspended. The Court established the principle that where a convict has served a substantial portion of their sentence and the appellate process is delayed, suspension of sentence is appropriate, provided the petitioner furnishes adequate bail bonds.
- Can the sentence of a convict be suspended under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future?
- Is the suspension of sentence appropriate where a convict has already served a substantial portion of the awarded imprisonment?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this application under section 426, Cr.P.C. Petitioner Tariq, seeks suspension of sentence under section 201, P.P.C. For causing the disappearance of evidence regarding murder of Muhammad Ali, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi and Ali Hassan minor (deceased persons) and sentenced to six years' R.I. (3 years' R.I. And 3 years' S.I.) on three counts. All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide judgment dated 25-3-2005, passed in case F.I.R. No,22, dated 13-2-2001 offence under sections 364, 302, 201, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the petitioner.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the extra-judicial confession is joint one, which cannot be relied upon for the conviction of the petitioner. There is no evidence that the petitioner participated in disappearance of the dead bodies, which were allegedly buried and later on were recovered on the direction of the Court, were deformed and their identification was not possible, thus, evidence against the petitioner cannot be relied upon. There is no chance of hearing to the petitioner's appeal in the near future.
3. Conversely, learned State counsel opposed this petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to the finding of the learned trial Court, Zahoor Ahmed and Tariq (petitioners) are sons of Muhammad Anwar and the chain of evidence is complete against Zahoor Ahmed for homicide under section 302, P.P.C.
And against Zahoor and Tariq for causing disappearance of evidence under section 201, P.P.C. The petitioner Tariq was convicted under section 201, P.P.C. For causing the disappearance of the evidence regarding the murder of three deceased persons and sentenced to six years' R.I. As per report submitted by Superintendent, Central Jail, Sahiwal, petitioner Tariq was sentenced to six years' R.I. Under section 201, P.P.C. On three counts. He has undergone a period of two years, eleven months and twenty-four days and unexpired portion of the sentence to undergo is three years and six days'. Since, the petitioner was not convicted for the homicide of the deceased persons, he was only convicted under section 201, P.P.C. He has already suffered half portion of his sentence and there is no likelihood of the appeal, to be. Taken up in near future due to heavy pendency of the appeals
5. For the foregoing reasons, while exercising power under section 426, Cr.P.C. We suspend the sentence awarded to the petitioner till the final decision of his appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. C.M. Stands disposed of.