Shoukat, Etc. vs The State, Etc.
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner, Dais Muhammad, seeking the suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of his appeal against conviction. The petitioner, convicted under Section 302(b) and Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that he was not named in the initial First Information Report, was declared innocent during the police investigation, and that his appeal had remained pending for over two years without fault on his part. The State opposed the application, citing the gravity of the offense involving multiple casualties. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for more than two years since the impugned judgment, and the delay in the appeal's disposal could not be attributed to him. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence. The key principle established is that where a convict has served a significant period of imprisonment and the appeal is not likely to be decided in the near future through no fault of the appellant, the suspension of sentence is warranted.
- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an appeal has remained pending for over two years without fault of the appellant?
- Is the suspension of a sentence pending appeal contingent upon the merits of the conviction?
- Does the gravity of an offense, such as one involving multiple casualties, automatically preclude the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J. - Dais Muhammad petitioner/appellant No. 2 as being pro-convict after having filed an appeal to be acquitted of all charges have instituted an application under Section 426, Cr.P.C, be suspended his quantum of sentence imposed upon him as under;-
(i) Life imprisonment under Section 302(b), P.P.C, with payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Azizan Bibi and in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months.
(ii) Two years' imprisonment under Section 148, P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run pari passu and he was also extended the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant No. 2 contends that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.; post to the registration of the case about 43 days later, on a supplemental statement of the complainant, he was involved; processual investigation resolved him innocent, consequently, complainant being averse to the police opinion filed a private criminal complaint In which trial was concluded and repugned punishing judgment was announced. Further submits that, prima facie, no legal evidence exists against the petitioner to sustain his conviction and sentence; every prospect exists of his acquittal, otherwise, stipulated period of two years has elapsed but the appeal has not yet been decided, its non- decision cannot be attributed to the petitioner and in the near future its final decision appears to be in somber on account of death sentence of the co- convict namely Shoukat Ali and the petitioner is neither hardened criminal nor desperate and has never ever been involved in any act of terrorism and is a previous non-convict, therefore, quantum of sentence imposed upon him may be suspended.
3. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed Submissions astutely by deft and argued that learned Trial Court after the proper appraisal of the material available before it had rightly drawn a conclusion in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Further maintains that in incident, three persons have lost their lives besides two were injured; the volume of the incident is so high, the same prima facie persuade to conclude the element of desperation was displayed by the petitioner and his particeps criminis, therefore, he deserves denial of relief sought for.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Without touching the merits of the case, it has been noticed that petitioner is behind the bars since the pronouncement of the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2006, more than two years have elapsed but appeal of the petitioner has not been decided so decision cannot be attributed to the petitioner Dais Muhammad by any stretch of imagination and no preternatural circumstance has been noticed warranting rejection of instant petition, therefore, the same is allowed. Resultantly, quantum of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is suspended till final decision of appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00, 000/- (two lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of DR (Jud1.) of this Court. He is directed to appear before this Court incessantly till final decision of appeal.