MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment awarded under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the statutory ground of non-disposal of his appeal within two years pursuant to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail due to the delay in deciding his appeal beyond the statutory period of two years, and whether he fell within the exclusionary proviso as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The Lahore High Court held that since the appeal had remained undecided for more than two years without any fault or delay on the part of the appellant, and in the absence of any previous conviction or evidence showing him to be a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, the petitioner was entitled to the statutory concession. The court laid down the principle that a convict serving life imprisonment whose appeal is not decided within two years is entitled to suspension of sentence under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided the delay is not attributable to the appellant and the convict does not fall within the exclusionary proviso.
- Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to suspension of sentence if his appeal is not decided within two years?
- Whether the delay in the decision of an appeal occasioned by an act or omission of the appellant disentitles him to statutory bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What constitutes a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal under the proviso to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Saleem, petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions judge Chichawatni, District Sahiwal vide judgment dated 31.05.2012 passed in case FIR No, 198/2010, under Sections 302 and 34, PPC, registeied at Police Station Kassowal, Chichawatni District Sahiwal, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- "34. ... The upshot of my above discussion is that all the accused have committed the Qatl-i-Amd of Javed Masih accused in furtherance of common intention, therefore each of accused is convicted under Section 302(b), PPC read with Section 34, PPC and sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT AS Tazir and to pay Rs,50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of said deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and the defaulting convict shall further undergo S.I. For Six Months. The convicts are extended benefit under Section 382-B of, Cr.P.C."
2. This Crl Misc No, 1 of 2014 was filed on merits, however, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that statutory ground has also ripped as the appeal was filed on 06.06.2012 and if the Crl.
Misc No, 1 of 2014 is decided on statutory ground he will not press the same on merits.
3. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant therefore, I am proceeding with the matter after hearing the learned Deputy Prosecutor General.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the record it has been observed as follows:
(a) This petition is being decided on the statutory ground i,e, non-disposal of appeal within a period of two years as prescribed under Section 426 Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 426 (1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure, a convict of life imprisonment is entitled for suspension of sentence if his/her appeal is not decided within a period of two years. The relevant provisions of law is reproduced hereunder:-- ' 426. Suspension of sentence pending appeal: Release of appellant on bail:
(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond.
1-A. An Appellate Court shall, except where it is of 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:-- (a)
(b) .
(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 paragraphs 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." b. Admittedly this appeal was filed on 06.06.2012 whereas the judgment of conviction was passed on 31.05.2012. c. The appeal filed by the petitioner has not been decided within two years and in the circumstances the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay in the disposal of appeal. d.
Now the only question for determination before this Court is as to whether the petitioner can be treated as hardened, desperate or a dangerous criminal as contemplated in the proviso to Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General after perusal of the record, confirms that there is no record of previous conviction of the petitioner. While taking into consideration the over all circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be treated as hardened, desperate or a dangerous criminal. e. There is no chance of hearing of the main appeal in near future.
5. Under the circumstances, case of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of proviso to Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni vide judgment dated 31.05.2012 is hereby suspended subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench. The petitioner is, however, directed to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing fixed for the disposal of main appeal.
(A.S) .