SAJJAD AHMAD alias SHAHBAZ vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition arises from a conviction and sentence for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner challenged the trial court's judgment, which had simultaneously decided the main challan case and a cross-version case in a single judgment. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred by relying on evidence from the cross-version case to convict the petitioner in the main case, and whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence given the trial court's rejection of the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed a legal error by deciding both cases through a solitary judgment and by improperly using evidence from the cross-case to establish the petitioner's identity. Furthermore, the court noted that the trial court had expressly disbelieved the motive alleged by the prosecution. Consequently, the High Court suspended the petitioner's sentence and granted bail, affirming the principle that a trial court cannot decide a challan case and a cross-version case via a single judgment, and that the rejection of motive entitles an accused to the suspension of sentence.
- Can a trial court decide a challan case and a cross-version case through a single judgment?
- Is an accused entitled to suspension of sentence if the trial court disbelieves the motive alleged in the FIR?
- Is it permissible for a trial court to rely on evidence recorded in a cross-version case to convict an accused in the main challan case?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---The petitioner Sajjad Ahmed alias Shahbaz son of Abdul Rasheed was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Burewala in case F.I.R. No,182 of 2005 dated 18-6- 2005 for offences under sections 302/337-A(i), 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sahuka, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari who, vide impugned judgment dated 30-10- 2010, convicted and sentenced the petitioner/appellant as follows:-- UNDER SECTION 302(b), P.P.C.
' Imprisonment for "Life" with fine of Rs,1,00,000 which if recovered would be payable to the legal heirs of deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in case of default to suffer six months Simple Imprisonment.
' Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of the accused/petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mis-carriage of justice has been occasioned by the learned trial Court by deciding the challan case and cross-version case by means of a solitary judgment. In the instant case prejudice has also been caused to the petitioner in as much as the name of the assailant was mentioned as Shahbaz but was subsequently substituted by the name Sajjad Ahmad petitioner (herein) by referring to the evidence which was brought on the record in the cross version case. The motive was totally disbelieved and disregarded by the trial court while convicting the petitioner. The petitioner who is behind the bars since 30-10-2010 is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition and submitted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner although the challan case and the cross version case were decided by means of one judgment as the learned trial court never relied on the evidence adduced in trial court never relied on the evidence adduced in the cross version case to convict the petitioner. The petitioner who earlier remained a proclaimed offender for two years is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. After hearing the arguments addressed at the bar and going through the judgment of the trial court it is clear that the challan case as well as the cross case were decided by the trial court by means of one judgment. The trial court erred in deciding the challan case on the basis of evidence recorded in the cross case which action is not permissible in terms of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Muhammad Gulzar v. Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others" 1981 SCM R 435.
5. The learned trial court while convicting the petitioner stated as follows:-- "The F.I.R. Was registered against accused party including Shahbaz and Asif but Shahbaz was corrected as Saj jad and Asif was corrected as Aslam. In cross version, Muhammad Akram complainant had stated that at the time and place of occurrence, he was accompanied by Sajjad Ahmed, hence, the presence of Sajjad accused over there was admitted. It proves that the name of Sajjad alias Shahbaz was mentioned in the F.I.R. As Shahbaz inadvertently."
6. It is thus clear that the petitioner was convicted while relying on the testimony appearing in the cross case. The trial court, also observed that the occurrence took place on account of a sudden flare up between the parties leading to a free fight in which both sides received injuries. With regard to motive the trial court observed as follows:-- "Hence, the evidence about the motive as alleged in the F.I.R. By the complainant party is non- existent on record. Thus, the motive as alleged in the F.I.R. By the complainant party is shrouded in mystery and not proved."
7. Where the motive has been disbelieved by the trial court the petitioner would also be entitled for suspension of sentence as has been held in "Muhammad Saleem alias Buggi v. The State" (2004 YLR 97 Lahore).
8. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is suspended and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (rupees two lacs only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The petitioner shall appear before this court on each and every date of hearing till the final disposal of the main appeal.