ALLAH DITTAand anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioners, Allah Ditta and Nasir, seeking the suspension of their sentences of life imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, following their conviction under sections 302(2), 392, 404, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, noting that the judgment itself acknowledged they did not personally cause injuries to the deceased, Amir Ali. They argued that a reappraisal of evidence was necessary. Conversely, the State opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioners shared a common intention with the co-accused in the commission of the murder and robbery. Upon review, the Lahore High Court held that the petitioners' contentions regarding the merits of the case and the appreciation of evidence were premature at the suspension stage. The Court emphasized that such arguments must be reserved for the hearing of the main appeal. Finding no legal error in the impugned judgment, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient grounds for the suspension of their sentences.
- Can a court conduct a detailed reappraisal of evidence at the stage of suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Does the absence of physical injury caused by a co-accused negate liability for murder when common intention is established?
- Is a petition for suspension of sentence maintainable when the arguments raised relate solely to the merits of the conviction?
- Section 302(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 404, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2011 ' SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.--- Through the instant Criminal Miscellaneous, the petitioners/Allah Ditta and Nasir have sought their suspension of sentences, awarded by the learned Additional Session's Judge, Chiniot, vide judgment dated 13-5-2010, in a case bearing F.I.R. No,35 of 2007, dated 14-1- 2007, registered in Police Station City Chiniot, under sections 302/392/404/411, P.P.C. The detail of the sentences is as under: Allah Ditta/Petitioner No,l.
Undersections 302(2), P.P.C.Sentenced to the imprisonment for life. He was further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo six months' S.I.
Under section 392, P.P.C.Sentenced to five years with fine of Rs.50,000 and in default thereof to further undergo S.I for six months.
Under section 404, P.P.C.Sentenced to two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for three months.
Under section 411, P.P.C., as "Tazir"Sentenced to two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I. for three months.
Nasir/petitioner No.2 Under sections 302(2), P.P.C.Sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo six months. S.I.
Under section 392Five years with fine of Rs.50,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for six months.
Under section 404 P.P.C.Sentence to two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment, to further undergo S.I. for three months.
Under section 411, P.P.C.Two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for three months.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. He further submitted that in the judgment the learned trial court has held that the petitioners did not cause any. Injury to the deceased Amir Ali and despite that they have been excessively punished. He added that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against them and reappraisal of the evidence would be required to maintain the conviction of the petitioners. He claimed that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than four and a half years and are entitled to the suspension of their sentences.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant petition on the ground that the petitioners actively participated in the occurrence and shared their common intention with the co-accused to commit the murder of Amir Ali deceased. He submitted that deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be taken into at this stage.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Vide order dated 20-9-2011, a report was requisitioned from Superintendent, Central Jail, Faisalabad and according to his report dated 22-10-2011 both the petitioners were awarded aforementioned sentences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, out of which they have only served out five (5) years, eight (8) months and twelve (12) days including remissions and the remaining un served period of their sentences is 19 years, 3 months and 1 days. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are relatable to the merits of the case and at this stage/this Court B cannot enter into a reappraisal of the evidence, which should be considered at the time of hearing of the accompanying appeal. In the judgment, learned trial Court has observed that the petitioners shared the common intention of the co-accused/Azam, who committed the murder of deceased Amir Ali, as such, they have also been sentenced and punished for committing the offences falling under sections 392/ 404/411, P.P.C. And awarded aforementioned sentences. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to justify any legal error in the 'impugned judgment to suspend the sentences of the petitioners. Hence, no ground is made out to suspend the sentences of the petitioners. Dismissed.