LAL SHER vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Lal Sher seeking the suspension of his sentence of imprisonment for life awarded under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail on the statutory ground of delay in the disposal of his appeal under Section 426(1A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's sentence should be suspended because his appeal had not been decided within the statutory period of two years, and the prosecution failed to establish that he fell within the exceptions disentitling him to this relief. The key principle laid down is that a convict has a statutory right to the suspension of sentence and release on bail if their appeal is not decided within two years, unless they are shown to be a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, a previous convict, or involved in terrorism.
- Whether a convict is entitled to suspension of sentence on the statutory ground of delay in the disposal of an appeal under Section 426(1A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the right to suspension of sentence due to appellate delay be denied without establishing that the convict is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b)/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426(1A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition, Lal Sher petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide judgment dated 17.04.2010 in case FIR No, 318/2000 dated 30.05.2000, under Section 302/34, PPC, Police Station Noor Shah, 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,50,000/- as envisaged u/S. 544-A, Cr.P.C., which if not paid, shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and if the compensation amount is neither paid nor recovered, the petitioner shall further undergo six months S.I.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. 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".
4. 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.
5. In the instant case, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 17.04.2010. He has filed his appeal on 01.10.2010. After filing of appeal, almost four years 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.
6. 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 of Rs,200,000/- (Rupees Two 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.