Umar Hayat vs State etc
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Umar Hayat, seeking the suspension of his sentence of death awarded by the trial court on June 18, 2013, for an offense under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that his criminal appeal, filed in 2013, had not been fixed for hearing, that he had already served approximately five and a half years in custody, and that the legal heirs of the deceased had submitted affidavits exonerating him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established sufficient grounds to warrant the suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that at the stage of suspension of sentence, a deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible. The Court found that the conviction was based on proven prosecution evidence and that there was no unusual or unconscionable delay in the hearing of the appeal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any special circumstances justifying the suspension of his sentence.
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of considering a petition for suspension of sentence?
- Does the mere pendency of an appeal for several years constitute an unconscionable delay sufficient to justify the suspension of a death sentence?
- What is the standard for granting the suspension of a sentence after a conviction has been recorded by a trial court?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Crl. Misc. No. 1 of 2015 Through this petition, Umar Hayat petition er seeks suspension of sentence, who was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 18.6.2013 as under: Under Section 302(b), PPC to death by way of Tazir, be hanged by his neck till death and to pay Rs. 4,00,0001- as compensation u/S. 544-A, Cr .P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the conviction and sentence before this Court through Criminal Appeal No. 861/2013, in which no date has been fixed so far and there is no chance of early hearing the appeal in near future. That the legal heirs of the diseased have submitted affidavits that the petitioner is not their accused and Rukhsana Bibi wife of deceased Khalid also filed a private complaint against the real accused of the deceased and according to her, the petitioner is not their accus ed. That the petitioner has spent a period of about 51/2 years in jail, he is a previous non convict and no purpose of law will be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence available on record which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He contends that the petitioner since his arrest is behind the bars, hearing of the main appeal is not in sight in near future as appeal of the petitioner pertains to the year 2013. He argued that genuineness or otherwise of the allegation against the petitioner would be adjudged at the time of final hearing of the appeal. He lastly prayed for suspension of sentence awarded to the petitioner .
4. On the other hand learned Addl. AG oppose this petition by submitting that the petitioner has rightly been convicted and no exception can be made at this stage. It was argued that argum ents advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner amounts to deeper appreciation, of evidence which are not desirable at this stage, therefore, he is not entitled for the relief prayed for .
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl: AG at considerable length and going through the impugned judgment it has been observed that the petitioner was convicted u/S. 302(b), PPC and sentenced to death. This is a petition for suspension of sentence; therefore, deeper appreciation of the evidence discussed by the learned trial Court in its judgment is not permissible at this stage. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court shows that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced after finding the case of the prosecution to have been proved against him. The conviction is awarded after appraising of evidence against the petitioner which will be discussed at the time of hearing of main appeal. The petitioner was sentenced vide judgment dated 18.06.2013 and the appeal of the petitioner is related to the year 2013, thus, there is no unusual or unconscionable delay in hearing the same which can be made basis for suspension of petitioner's sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to establish any ground for suspension of sentence passed against the petitioner by the learned trial Court. At this stage there are no special circumstances to suspend the sentence of the petitioner .
Therefore, we are not persuaded to suspend the conviction and sentence award ed to the petitioner . Resultantly , this petition being devoid of force is hereby dismissed.