Haji AMAN ULLAH & 2 others vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application seeking the suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of an appeal against conviction. The petitioners were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302(b)/149 and 364/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving life imprisonment and other penalties. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to the suspension of their sentences given the inconsistencies in the trial court's findings regarding their specific role in the crime and the reliability of the prosecution's evidence. The court held that the trial court's judgment lacked clarity on the petitioners' specific involvement, noting that while the trial court disbelieved the eye-witnesses, it paradoxically relied on other evidence to convict. Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioners had been incarcerated since 2010. Consequently, the court allowed the application and suspended the sentences, holding that continued confinement served no useful purpose pending the appeal. The principle established is that where the trial court's findings on evidence are contradictory and the conviction appears prima facie doubtful, the suspension of sentence is warranted.
- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal when the trial court's findings on the evidence are contradictory?
- Does the rejection of eye-witness testimony by a trial court undermine the reliability of other evidence used to convict?
- Is the long duration of pre-appeal incarceration a valid ground for the suspension of a sentence?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners, Haji Aman Ullah and Maqsood Khan seek release on bail by way of suspension of their sentence awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar vide judgment dated 23.4.2013, whereby they were convicted under Sections 302(b)/149 P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life each with direction to pay a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-each to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and under Sections 364/149, P.P.C. To rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs,50,000/- or in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to them.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the learned trial Court has. Categorically observed in the impugned judgment that it was Hafeez Ullah Khan (co-convict of the petitioners), who had committed murder of Liaqat Hussain deceased on the pretext of Ghairat and his brother Aman Ullah (petitioner) joined by his son Maqsood Khan (petitioner) helped in with the community of intention to commit the crime. It has not been clarified in the said judgment as to how and in what manner Haji Aman Ullah and Maqsood Khan convict/petitioners had helped their co-accused Hafeez Ullah Khan. The medical evidence tendered by Dr.Zil-e-Hasnain (P.W.5) gives rise to a strong impression that the injuries sustained by the deceased had been caused by soft-bore weapon as some pieces of wads were noticed by the autopsy-performer in the brain-matter of the deceased, giving strength to the idea that a 12-bore weapon had been used to murder him. The testimonies rendered by the eye-witnesses, Mukhtar (P.W.8) and Akhtar Hussain (P.W.10) have been referred to in the impugned judgment, which showed that they had burdened the petitioners with the liability of holding rifles at the time of the alleged occurrence. Besides learned trial Court brushed aside the testimonies of the eye-witnesses (P.W.8 &P.W.10) being highly doubtful. If eye-witnesses had been disbelieved, how come the witnesses of last seen evidence could be believed to hand down the sentence of imprisonment for life each to the petitioners. It would be a crucial question to be taken care of at the time of final adjudication of the appeal (Crl.A.No, 644/2013), filed by the petitioners against their conviction/sentence. They were taken into custody on 5.10.2010 and they have been languishing in jail ever since. Keeping them continuously confined in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
Therefore, this application is allowed and sentence of the petitioners is suspended. They are directed to be released from the prison subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000/- (five Lacs): each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. They shall appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing of the main appeal.