Sajjad Hussain alias Shaka vs The State and another
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of the applicant’s sentence of life imprisonment pending the disposal of his criminal appeal. The applicant had been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail given the circumstances of the case and the delay in the appeal process. The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the initial crime report, no identification parade was conducted, and the prosecution relied solely on witnesses who were relatives of the deceased. Furthermore, the applicant had already served over eight years in prison, and the final disposal of the appeal was not imminent. The Court held that the liberty of the individual is a precious right, and in the absence of a reparatory mechanism for wrongful incarceration, suspension of sentence is appropriate when the appeal is unlikely to be decided soon. The sentence was suspended, and bail was granted.
- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the disposal of the main criminal appeal is not likely in the near future?
- Does the absence of an identification parade and the fact that the accused was not named in the FIR constitute valid grounds for considering the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
- Is the liberty of a convict a relevant consideration for the suspension of sentence when there is no legal mechanism to compensate for wrongful incarceration?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 9, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
ALI ZIA BAJW A, J.---Through the instant petition filed under section 426, Cr.P.C., Sajjad Hussain (applicant) seeks suspension of operation of impugned judgment dated 04.02.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Jampur , in case FIR No.143/2014, dated 24.05.2014, registered under section 302, P.P.C., with Police Station Saddar Jampur , District Rajanpur , whereby the learned trial court convicted the applicant under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with a direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default thereof to undergo S.I. for six months. He was also extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Challenging his conviction and sentence, the applicant has filed the titled Criminal Appeal.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the record available on the file, it has been noticed by this Court that the appellant was not named in the crime report, which was lodged against the unknown accused. The only evidence available on record against the appellant is Wajtakar furnished by Muhammad Sadiq and Ghulam Yaseen, who are paternal uncles of the complainant as well as deceased and despite the fact that they were residents of same vicinity , their names were not mentioned in the crime report. Similarly , no identification parade was held in this case. In absence of any motive for the commission of the alleged offence, the upholding of the sentence imposed upon the appellant in peculiar circumstances of the case require very serious consideration, which can be undertaken at the time of hearing of appeal. The appellant has already undergone sentence of about eight and half years, whereas disposa l of main criminal appeal is not within sight in near future. As such, I am constrained to observe that liberty of a person being precious right, which is also guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 coupled with the fact that if after suffering the incarceration in jail, the petitioner is acquitted, how he could be comp ensated for his incarceration, as there is no reparatory arrangement so far provided in any law including the Cr.P.C. to compensate him for incarceration in prison for years, while to the contrary subsection (3) of section 426, Cr.P.C. provides that while computing the sentence of the convict, the period during which his sentence was suspended and he was released on bail, shall be excluded from the total period of Sentence, he has to undergo. Thus, at this stage, the ground of statutory delay is also available to the appellant. Even otherwise, the petitioner is' neither hardened nor desperate criminal.
3. Resultantly , without touching merits of the case, the instant Criminal Miscellan eous is allowed and sentence awarded to the appellant/applicant by the learned trial Court is hereby suspended and he is ordered to be released on bail in present case subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. He be directed to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing till the final decision of main appeal.