SIRAJ and 2 others vs The STATE
This is a criminal appeal in which the appellants sought the suspension of their sentence of twenty years rigorous imprisonment and fine awarded under sections 376 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin. The core legal question was whether the sentence of the appellants could be suspended and bail granted pending appeal in view of a compromise between the parties, despite the offence being non-compoundable. The Sindh High Court held that considering the peculiar circumstances, the fact that the complainant and the victim filed affidavits stating they had forgiven the appellants in the name of Allah, and given the no-objection raised by the complainant, victim, and the Deputy Prosecutor-General, the sentence should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The court laid down the principle that while deeper appreciation of evidence is barred at the suspension stage, a lenient view regarding the suspension of sentence can be taken based on the specific facts and a compromise between the parties even in non-compoundable offences.
- Whether sentence can be suspended pending appeal when parties have effected a compromise in a non-compoundable offence?
- Can the court consider affidavits of forgiveness from the complainant and victim for granting bail during appeal?
- Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while deciding an application for suspension of sentence?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---Through instant application, appellants 'seek suspension of sentence awarded to them vide impugned judgment dated 1-2-2012, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin in Sessions Case No,116 of 2010, whereby the appellants were convicted under sections 376 and 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and also to pay fine of Rs,10,000 each and in case of default thereof they were ordered to undergo further one year's imprisonment.
2. ' Learned counsel for the appellants contended that parties have compounded the offence; complainant and the victim have filed their affidavits wherein they have stated that they have forgiven the appellants in the name of ALLAH. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that though the offence is not compoundable, but in spite of that, the Superior Courts have taken a lenient view in such type of cases wherein the parties have effected compromise. The reliance is placed on 1995 PCr.LJ 1606, 2002 SCM R 184, 1998 SCM R 466 and 2004 PCr.LJ 923. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are in custody since 1-2- 2012.
3. Complainant Hussain and victim Saneeha are present along with their counsel Syed Madad Ali Shah. They have verified the contents of their affidavits and have raised no objection if the sentence awarded to the appellants is suspended and they are released on bail.
4. ' Syed Meeral Shah learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State contended that since the parties have compromised, therefore, he has no objection if the sentence of the appellants is suspended and they are released on bail.
5. ' I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides.
6. The deeper appreciation of the evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage. The complainant and the victim have extended no objection in the shape of affidavits to the suspension of sentence awarded to the appellants and their release on bail. Accordingly, while taking in view the peculiar circumstances and facts of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby suspended during pendency of the appeal and they are directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 100,000 (One Lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- NAEEM-UL-ARFEEN Versus State 2016 YLRN 112
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and anothers vs The STATE 2015 MLD 925