NOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2012 ' Noor Ahmad petitioner has sought for the suspension of sentence.

2. Petitioner along with his co-accused was tried for the commission of murder of Zahid Hussain and Muhammad Husnain, after having been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as follows:-- "Life imprisonment under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. On two counts for causing death of Muhammad Hasnain and Zahid Hussain with order to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation on each count to the legal heirs of above-mentioned deceased persons."

' Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

3. Being pro convicto filed an appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. Seeking acquittal wherein moved an application under section 426, Cr.P.C. Soliciting for suspension of execution of quantum of sentence till the final decision of the appeal on multiple grounds:

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that petitioner along with 10 other unknown accused persons made murderous assault upon the deceased party. Co-accused , Muhammad Sohail (since P.O.) made a fire shot with his rifle which hitting Zahid Hussain on his left side of head who fell to the ground thereafter Muhammad Arshad co-accused with his 8 M.M. Rifle made a fire shot hitting upon Muhammad Hussain deceased on his chest who also fell to the ground succumbed to the injuries whereas petitioner and his co-accused then made indiscriminate firing.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per prosecution's own case petitioner has not been attributed any fire shot injury having been caused by the petitioner to either of the deceased person whereas role of Lalkara alleged against the petitioner does not fit in the circumstances of the case. It has been submitted that petitioner is aged about 75 years and being senescent is entitled for the suspension of sentence and has relied upon Muhammad All v. The State (YLR 2007 Lahore 2986), Mst.. Nasreen Bibi v. The State (PLD 2007 Lahore 531), Muhammad Yasin v. The State (M LD 2007 Lahore 1066) and Mumtaz Hussain v. The State (YLR 2006 Lahore 2385).

6. Learned DDPP has opposed submissions and supported the impugned judgment and further argued that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are amounting to deep appraisal of the evidence whereas old age by itself provide a right to a convict to be admitted to bail and reliance has been placed on 2011 SCM R 1107.

7. Arguments have been heard and the judgments have been gone through.

8. It has been noticed that petitioner firstly raised a Lalkara thereafter his co-accused made firing at the two deceased persons and then he along with his co-accused made indiscriminate firing. In this way, no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Petitioner is octogenarian; senility brings infirmity as to natural process of decay. In the near future A no hope of hearing of appeal exists. In this situation, prima facie circumstances exist warranting acceptance of.Application. Thus the instant application is allowed. Resultantly, quantum of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is suspended 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 incessant till decision of appeal.