Muhammad Akmal vs The State
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon a petition filed by Muhammad Akmal under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail pending his criminal appeal. The petitioner was convicted under Section 321 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, and sentenced to pay Diyat amounting to Rs. 10,94,816/-, with imprisonment until payment. The core legal question involves whether the sentence of a convict should be suspended when co-accused with similar roles have been acquitted, medical evidence regarding the cause of death is debatable, and the main appeal cannot be heard in the near future. The Court held that since the main appeal is not likely to be heard soon and the sentence involves payment of Diyat which can be recovered from the petitioner's assets, the suspension of sentence is warranted. The key principle laid down is that where an appellant's imprisonment serves merely as a coercive measure for monetary payment and the appeal is unlikely to be heard promptly, coupled with arguable points regarding disparate treatment of co-accused and medical evidence, the sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal may be suspended.
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of Diyat can be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending the decision of the main appeal?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused with a similar role furnish a ground for suspending the sentence of a convicted appellant?
- Is the unlikelihood of an early hearing of a criminal appeal a valid ground for the suspension of sentence?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 321, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J. - By filing this petition under Section 426, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Akmal petitioner/appellant has sought suspension of sentence as vide judgment dated 6.10.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, he has been convicted under Section 321, P.P.C. And sentenced to make payment of Diyat amounting to Rs. 10,94,816/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, who has been taken into custody and sent to jail till the payment of diyat.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt against the petitioner; that the co-accused with the similar role have already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court and there was no material on the record to distinguish the role of the petitioner who has been wrongly convicted and sentenced in spite of the fact that the doctor opined that the deceased died due to pre-existing act ischemic heart disease and there was no material on the record to suggest that it occurred due to the simple injuries allegedly caused during the occurrence; that even-the nature and number of the injuries, which were four did not commensurate with the number of accused nominated by the prosecution, and that the case was got registered out of previous enmity and mala fide and there are bright chances for acquittal of the appellant, whose sentence may be suspended.
3. On the other hand learned D.P.G. Has opposed this petition and contends' that the petitioner has been awarded sentence only about 23 days ago, who is not entitled for the relief claimed for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. It is not denied that the co-accused with the similar role have already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court and whether there were any special circumstances to distinguish the case of the petitioner or the medical evidence was sufficient to prove the charge against the petitioner are the questions to be determined by this Court, but for the time being there are no chances for the hearing of the main appeal in the near future and if the petitioner is ultimately acquitted from the charge, the period served by him in jail will not be compensated in any manner while in case of dismissal of the appeal he is only liable to pay the diyat, which even can be recovered from the assets of the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition for suspension of sentence is allowed and Muhammad Akmal appellant shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
However, it is clarified that the appellant shall continue to appear before this Court on each and every date till the final disposal of the main appeal.