WASEEM vs STATE
This matter arises from a petition for the suspension of sentence filed on behalf of Waseem, who sought relief on the grounds of non-recovery of any weapon from his person, his incarceration for six years, and the acquittal of his co-accused on the same evidence. The core legal question is whether the sentence of the petitioner should be suspended pending appeal given the acquittal of co-accused, non-recovery of the weapon, and the duration of imprisonment. The Lahore High Court held that the petition lacks merit and dismissed it. The court reasoned that the petitioner was specifically attributed a firearm injury on the flank of the deceased, which was supported by medical evidence and the post-mortem report, and that motive was also attributed to him. The court laid down the principle that the mere non-recovery of a weapon of offence and the acquittal of co-accused do not automatically warrant the suspension of a sentence where specific ocular and medical evidence directly connects the accused to a fatal injury.
- Whether non-recovery of a weapon of offence is a sufficient ground to suspend a sentence in a murder case?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence automatically entitle another convict to suspension of sentence?
- Whether a specific firearm injury attributed to an accused, corroborated by medical evidence, precludes the suspension of his sentence?
ORDER
In support of this petition for suspension for sentence on behalf of Waseem, learned counsel submits that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. Further submits that on the same set of evidence Ghulam Ali and Naeem, co-accused of the petitioner, have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Adds that the crime empty taken into possession from the spot matched with the weapon of offence recovered on the pointation of Naeem, since acquitted by the learned trial Court. It is argued that petitioner is behind the bars for the last six years.
2. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that motive is attributed to the petitioner there are three injuries on the person of the deceased out of which one is attributed to the present petitioner; motive is also attributed to him; the injury attributed to him is available on the person of the deceased and mere non-recovery of weapon of offence cannot be made a ground for suspension of sentence.
3. Heard.
4. The motive behind the occurrence was that the petitioner cut obnoxious jokes to Asifa, the real sister of the deceased, upon which an altercation took place and the matter was compromised but the petitioner alongwith other again came at the spot and fired a shot which landed on the flank of the deceased, which injury is available on the person of the deceased and is reflected from his post-mortem report. The ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. Mere non-recovery of weapon of offence is no ground to suspend the sentence. The impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.6.2008, two years and two months ago. No case for suspension of sentence is thus made out and petition for suspension of sentence is dismissed.