UMMER HAYAT vs The STATE and anothers
The petitioner sought post-conviction bail after being convicted under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment, while the trial court had disbelieved the prosecution version and concluded that the petitioner acted in defense. The core legal question was whether a convicted person whose act was found by the trial court to be defensive is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's finding that the act was defensive contradicts the simultaneous conviction and branding of the act as illegal, creating grounds to accept the petition. The court laid down the principle that reprobation and approbation cannot proceed simultaneously, and where the trial court's findings prima facie favor the accused's defense, the sentence may be suspended and bail granted pending the final decision of the appeal.
- Whether post-conviction bail can be granted when the trial court disbelieves the prosecution case and finds the act to be defensive?
- Can a court simultaneously brand an act as defensive yet illegal to sustain a conviction under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does an accused deserve suspension of sentence pending appeal when the trial court's findings prima facie support a plea of self-defense?
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 100, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---The petitioner was tried to conviction under section 302(c), P.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years by discarding the prosecution evidence and relying upon her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the prosecution case has been found false, then the plea of the accused is liable to be accepted in its totality and it has been admitted by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment that the petitioner acted while exercising his right of self defence then by exceptions contained under section 100, Cr.P.C, he deserves acquittal rather his conviction and sentence under section 302(c), P.P.C.. In these circumstances, the instant petition deserves to be accepted.
3. Submissions have been opposed by the learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant on the grounds that the material available on the record justifies the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. And the learned trial court has erroneously came to the conclusion to hold .Him guilty under section 302(c) P.P.C.
Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the complainant has filed a revision petition for the enhancement of quantum of sentence of the petitioner, therefore, it may not be appropriate to accept the instant petition at this earlier stage.
4. Heard. Impugned judgment has been gone through.
5. Chronological paragraph No, 35 of the impugned judgment shows that the learned trial court has disbelieved the prosecution version and has held the act of the petitioner as defensive, for further understanding the same is reproduced as under: 'For what has been discussed above, I hold that the accused Umer Hayat alias Kaka fired at Manzoor Ahmad deceased in his defence as a result of which he died. His act was defensive but illegal; therefore, keeping in view the circumstances of the case he is convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. For 14 years' R.I. He is granted benefit of section 382-8, Cr.P.C."
' When the learned trial court has held the bulwark act of the petitioner against the deceased as justified but it is then incomprehensible that how the court has branded it as illegal and the same is yet to be fathomable, reprobation approbation cannot proceed simultaneously. The material available on the record, prima facie has persuaded the Court to allow this petition. Thus, instant petition is accepted, quantum of sentence inflicted upon the petitioner is suspended and he is granted bail provided his submission of bail bond to the tune of Rs,2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. He shall remain incessant in appearing before this Court till final decision of the appeal.