RANJHO vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal appeal and an application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellant Ranjho, who was convicted under sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to seven years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively by the Assistant Sessions Judge Ubauro. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the sentence of the appellant should be suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal, particularly given that the conviction arose from an alleged police encounter where multiple assailants fired automatic weapons but no police personnel sustained any injuries, raising arguable questions regarding the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that since the applicability of section 324 requires deeper consideration which would take considerable time for the disposal of the appeal, the application ought to be allowed. The court laid down the principle that where the foundational circumstances of an alleged police encounter—such as heavy firing resulting in zero injuries to the police party—render the applicability of major penal provisions like attempted murder questionable, and the appeal is likely to take considerable time, the sentence may be suspended and the appellant released on bail.
- Whether the sentence awarded under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be suspended when no injuries were sustained by the police party during an alleged encounter?
- Does the lack of injuries on the complainant police party raise arguable questions regarding the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
- Can a sentence be suspended pending the disposal of an appeal if the hearing of the appeal is likely to take considerable time?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. BHAJANDAS TEJWANI, J.---This is application for suspension of sentence of seven years for offence under section 324, P.P.C. and one year for offence under section 353, P.P.C. awarded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge Ubauro by judgment dated 31-7-2010.
2. ' The learned counsel contended that this case is based on evidence of the police, alleging therein that there was encounter of the present appellant and others with police but none of the police party sustained any injury. Therefore, the trial Court should have determined that whether there was intention to commit the murder of anyone from the police party and applicability of section 324, P.P.C. in the circumstances. The learned counsel further submits that there was no convincing evidence before the trial, Court to record the conviction against the present appellant. In last he submits that the disposal of appeal before this court will take considerable time, therefore, suspension of sentence may be considered.
3. ' Mr. Shyam Lal A.P.-G. appearing for the state has opposed the suspension of sentence on the ground that sentence of seven years cannot be termed as short one and that case against the appellant was proved before the trial Court and the deeper appreciation at this stage cannot be made.
4. It is a matter of record that the entire case is based on police encounter; that in all five assailants who were alleged to be armed with kilashnikoves fired on the police party but it is strange to note that from such kilashnikoves none of the police persons have received even scratch injury.
5. Therefore, the applicability of section 324, P.P.C. is to be considered in the matter which will take considerable time in its disposal.
6. ' Accordingly, this application is allowed and the sentence awarded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is hereby suspended. The appellant shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs, 200,000 and P.R. bond.in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this court.