ALLAH DITTA Versus STATE

ORDER

Allah Ditta petitioner/appellant is seeking suspension of sentence through this petition. He was tried in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur. Through judgment dated 24-5-1997 he was convicted under section 302(c). P.P.C. and sentenced to 25 years R.I. and also directed to pay Rs.50.00C as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment to further undergo six months R.I.

2. The report of the unfortunate occurrence was lodged by Fareed Bakhsh P.W. father of Ashiq Hussain deceased, wherein it is alleged that on 14-7-1993 at evening time Allah Ditta appellant/petitioner took Ashiq Hussain deceased from his house and that on the following day the dead body of Ashiq Hussain was found lying in a Dhand and that matter was reported to the police at Police Station Kot Mithan at 1-30 p.m. where F.I.R. Exh.PB was recorded by Jahan Khan, A.S.I. The petitioner/appellant appeared before Rasool Bakhsh P.W.-3 and Allah Bachaya P.W.4 on 23-7-1993 and made an extrajudicial confession before them who produced him before the police and he was arrested.

Thereafter, he led the police and the witnesses and on his pointation got recovered blood-stained Kassi. The motive alleged was that about six months ago, Mst. Meraj daughter of Rasool Bakhsh P.W. has been engaged with Ashq Hussain deceased. Her hand was being sought by Allah Ditta accused etc. All, Ditta had allegedly asked the complainant and the victim not to claim the hen; of Mst. Meraj Bibi but they refused to oblige. The complainant strong suspected that Allah Ditta accused had committed the murder of his son Ashiq Hussain in order to remove him from the scene to achieve his object. According to the doctor (P.W.10) the autopsy was conducted on 15-7-1993 and he found one incised wound on the top of the head measuring 14 c.m. x 1.75 x bone deep which proved fatal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner while arguing the cage for suspension of sentence has stressed grounds with reference to the evidence recorded which requires deeper appreciation of the evidence, probe and evaluation.

4. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the prosecution evidence produced is cogent. The complainant has no reason to falsely implicate the appellant/petitioner and that there is strong likelihood that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court could be upheld in appeal though the case is based on circumstantial evidence yet the evidence is strong and unrebuttable.

5. I am not inclined to express anything on merits of the case. At this stage the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner require deeper appreciation which cannot be gone into. The tentative assessment of evidence produced' by the prosecution also cannot be ignored at this stage. Therefore, under the circumstances at the moment there is no National material to make a base for suspension of sentence of the appellant. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

N.H.Q./A-308/L Petition dismissed.