NOOR ABDULLAH AND Another vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against an interim order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which refused the petitioners' application for suspension of sentence pending their appeal against conviction and five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the eye-witnesses ought not to have been believed because they were named as accused in a counter case. The Supreme Court observed that such contentions related directly to the merits of the case, which fell to be appreciated and determined during the regular hearing of the main appeal. Holding that the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentences did not violate any provision or principle of law, particularly where specific roles of firing upon the victim were attributed to the petitioners by witnesses believed by the trial court, the Supreme Court found no ground for interference and dismissed the petition in limine.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretionary order refusing suspension of sentence when the plea raised pertains entirely to the merits of the pending appeal?
- Whether the credibility of prosecution eye-witnesses based on their status as accused in a counter case can be determined at the stage of an application for suspension of sentence rather than at the regular appeal hearing?
- Does specific attribution of firearm injuries to convicts by witnesses believed by the trial court justify refusing suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The two petitioners stand convicted and sentenced under section 307/34, P. P. C. To five years' R.
1. And fine of Rs. 1,000 each. Their request for suspension of the sentences awarded to them pending final disposal of the appeal filed before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, was refused by a learned Single Judge in the High Court for the reason that the victim in the incident, namely, Muhammad Nawaz and two other prosecution witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and who have been believed by the trial Court attributed the specific part to the two petitioners of having used their fire-arms which caused the injuries on the victim.
2. Shaikh Naveed Shaharyar, learned counsel appearing iii support of this petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court submits that the alleged eye- witnesses should not have been implicitly believed for the reason that they were named as accused persons in the counter case.
3. This plea as well as the others raised by the learned counsel relate to the merits of the case, and are to be appreciated at the regular hearing of the appeal. The order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court refusing to grant petitioners' request for suspension of the sentence awarded to them by the trial Court does not violate any provision or principle of law, and does not therefore call for interference by this Court.
4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.