NEMAT ULLAH and another vs THE STATE
This criminal matter involves a petition for the suspension of sentence filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Khan, following his conviction for murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending appeal, given that he had been declared innocent by the police during the investigation and placed in column No. 2 of the challan, and considering that co-accused persons who raised similar pleas of alibi had been acquitted. The petitioner further argued that discrepancies between the F.I.R. and the post-mortem report regarding injury counts indicated the absence of eyewitnesses. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's role was distinct from the acquitted co-accused, who were only attributed roles of abetment and raising a lalkara. The Court emphasized that the trial court had specifically found the petitioner guilty of murder after recording evidence, despite the police report. Consequently, the Court determined that no valid grounds for the suspension of sentence existed, as the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. with a direct role in the commission of the offense.
- Does the fact that an accused was declared innocent by the police in the challan automatically entitle them to suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Is the suspension of sentence warranted when the role attributed to the petitioner is distinct from that of co-accused persons who were acquitted?
- Can a trial court convict an accused person despite the police placing their name in column No. 2 of the challan?
ORDER
1. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for Muhammad Khan petitioner that he was found innocent by the police during the course of investigation and his name was placed in column No,2 of the challan; during the trial the plea of alibi taken up by the petitioner was not accepted whereas on the same plea co-accused of the petitioner namely Amras Khan and Ahmad Khan have been acquitted. Submits that the number of injuries find mentioned in the post-mortem report and F.I.R.
2. Are different which show that the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot. In support of his arguments learned counsel has also placed reliance on case title Muhammad Saleem v. The State 2004 M LD 1631.
3. ' Conversely, learned A.A.-G. And counsel for complainant submits that eyewitnesses while appearing before the trial Court have fully supported the prosecution case.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.G etc. There were four accused in the case. Ahmed Khan son of Sultan Ahmed was attributed the role of abetment whereas role of raising lalkara is attributed to Amras Khan son of Ahmed Khan. As far present petitioner is concerned he was specifically named in the F.I.R. With the role of making fire at Muhammad Mumtaz which hit him on his right buttock. Although the petitioner was declared innocent by the police and his name was placed in column No,2 of the challan but the trial Court after recording the evidence found the present petitioner guilty of the charge of murder of the deceased.
4. Furthermore, the role of present petitioner is totally different from Amras Khan and Ahmed Khan to whom the role of lalkara and abetment respectively is attributed. The judgment cited by the learned counsel is totally different from the circumstances of the present case. No ground for suspension of sentence is made out. Dismissed.