MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs The STATE and anothers
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Tariq, seeking the suspension of the execution of his sentence following his conviction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending appeal, given that his co-accused had been acquitted and the trial court had disbelieved the recovery evidence attributed to him. The petitioner argued that since all other accused persons were acquitted and no specific injury was attributed to him, he was entitled to the concession of bail. The court examined the impugned judgment and noted that the trial court had not accepted the recovery evidence and that the specific roles attributed to the petitioner were not substantiated, despite the acquittal of all other co-accused. Finding prima facie merit in the petitioner's contentions, the Court held that the suspension of the sentence was justified. The Court laid down the principle that where the prosecution's case suffers from significant evidentiary gaps, such as the rejection of recovery evidence and the acquittal of co-accused, the suspension of sentence pending appeal is appropriate.
- Can the execution of a sentence be suspended under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the trial court has disbelieved the recovery evidence?
- Is the suspension of a sentence justified when all co-accused persons have been acquitted and no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner?
- Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Criminal Miscellaneous No,2 of 2012 ' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.--- First application was dismissed due to non-prosecution. For the second time, petitioner Muhammad Tariq has sought for suspension of execution of quantum of sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that four persons were tried, all were attributed injuries by specificity but during investigation, the Investigating Agency did not accord the allegations contained in the F.I.R. And Tayyab, Ahmad Yar and Riaz were found innocent, ultimately a private criminal complaint was filed under section 200, Cr.P.C., then trial was concluded and finally judgment was borne. Further contends that on the face of it, petitioner deserves acquittal because all his particeps criminis have been acquitted, recovery has been disbelieved; divisibility of ocular testimony is not possible in this case, therefore, petitioner is liable to be granted concession of execution of quantum of sentence by way of acceptance of instant application and by releasing him on bail.
3. Submissions have been opposed by the adversaries on the ground that investigation outcome was involvement of the petitioner, then trial Court ultimately after sifting the chaff from the grains came to, the conclusion that petitioner was responsible, for the commission of murder and arguments raised ad barram by learned counsel for the petitioner necessarily tickle the court to go to the deep merits of the case and this practice cannot be undertaken while deciding application under section 426, Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments hearkened and buck passed the record.
5. Chronological paragraphs Nos.29 and ' 30 of the impugned judgment have also been gone through.
6. The accusational part of the judgment has also been taken into consideration. Learned trial Court has not accepted recovery allegedly made on the pointing out of the petitioner. Specific roles were attributed to all the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. But all have been acquitted. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Prima facie, material available on record justifies acceptance of instant application, therefore, instant petition is accepted. Consequently, quantum of sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail provided his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of DR (Judi) of this court. Petitioner is directed to appear before this court on all future dates of hearing incessantly.
Cited by 1 case
- MEHMOOD Versus KHURSHID BEGUM 2019 YLRN 42