GHULAM SHABBIR and 2 otherss vs STATE and another
This criminal petition concerns an application for the suspension of sentence filed by a convict, Ghulam Shabbir, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence based on the statutory delay in the disposal of his appeal, as provided under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought because his appeal had remained pending for over two years, exceeding the statutory limit, and the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner fell under the exceptions of being a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The Court affirmed the principle that the right to suspension of sentence on the statutory ground of delay in appeal disposal is mandatory unless the appellate court finds the delay was occasioned by the appellant or that the appellant is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, or involved in terrorism.
- Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence if their appeal has not been decided within two years of conviction?
- What are the exceptions to the statutory right of suspension of sentence due to delay in the disposal of an appeal?
- Does the burden of proving that a convict is a hardened or desperate criminal lie with the prosecution when opposing a suspension of sentence application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426(1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition, Ghulam Shabbir petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal vide judgment dated 30.06.2012 in case FIR No, 50/2011 dated 17.02.2011, under Section 302/34, PPC, Police Station Kassowal, District Sahiwal whereby the petitioner was convicted u/S. 302(b)/34, PPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs, 100,000/- as envisaged u/S. 544-A, Cr.P.C., in default whereof, the petitioner shall further undergo six months S.I.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment.
During the course of arguments for suspension of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the statutory ground i,e, delay in disposal of the appeal. At the outset, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of Section 426(1-A)(c) of the, Cr.P.C. For ready reference:- "426(1.A)--An Appellate Court shall, except where it is of the opinion that the delay in the decision of appeal has been-occasioned by an act or omission of the appellant or any other person acting on his behalf order a convicted person to be released on bail who has been sentenced-------------- -----
(c) to imprisonment for life or imprisonment exceeding seven years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of two years of his conviction.
' Provided that the provisions of the foregoing paragraph shall not apply to a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who in the opinion of the Appellate Court, is a hardened-desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life".
3. Bare reading of the above-noted provision makes it crystal clear that right of a convict for suspension of the sentence on statutory ground of delay in disposal of appeal cannot be denied except on the grounds mentioned in the 1st proviso of Section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. In this case, learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned counsel for the complainant have not been able to substantiate their contention with any material that the convict/petitioner is a desperate or hardened criminal.
4. In the instant case, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 30.06.2012. He has filed his appeal on 17.07.2012. After filing of appeal more than two years and two months have elapsed but the appeal has not been decided within the statutory period of two years. Hearing of the main appeal is not in sight in near future. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegation against the petitioner would be adjudged at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and sentence of the petitioner is suspended on the ground of statutory delay in the disposal of his appeal. He is directed to be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. However, the petitioner shall remain present before this Court on each and every date of hearing fixed in the main appeal.
(A.S.) .