ABDUL JABBAR Versus THE STATE
The applicant, Abdul Jabbar, filed a petition seeking the suspension of his sentence and grant of bail pending the disposal of his appeal against his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to suspension of sentence and bail given the contentions regarding lack of weapon recovery, absence of motive, police exoneration, and alleged discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the applicant was attributed an injury to the deceased, establishing his active role, and that the contentions required a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is attributed a specific injury connecting him to the crime, deeper appreciation of evidence will not be undertaken at the bail stage, and sentence will not be suspended.
- Whether a convicted person whose sentence is under appeal is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail when attributed an injury to the deceased?
- Can a deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken at the stage of seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Abdul Jabbar, the applicant through the instant petition has sought for suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail pending the disposal of the aforementioned appeal against the judgment dated 28-5-2002, recorded by Mr. Javaid Iqbal Warraich, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, whereby he has convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Tazir and to pay Rs.50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and -in default to suffer further three months' S.I. in case F.I.R. No.25 dated 29-1-2001 registered with Police Station Danewal, Tehsil and District Vehari.
2. It has been contended on his behalf that there is no mention in the F.I.R. and the prosecution evidence of the weapon of offence carried by him at the time of occurrence; that even no weapon was recovered from him; that no motive has been ascribed to him; that no witness from the locality has been cited or produced by the prosecution to support it's case against them; that medical evidence is also not in line with the ocular account; that it was a blind murder; and that he was declared innocent by the police and so deserves release on bail by suspending his sentence.
3. On the other hand; the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he has been attributed injury to the deceased and so his active role in occurrence was there; and that there is sufficient evidence on record to connect him with the crime.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
5. He has been ascribed injury to the deceased. The contentions raised on his behalf in fact require deeper appreciation of evidence, which is neither permissible nor desirable at this stage lest it may prejudice the case of either parties at the final hearing or decision of the appeal. I, therefore, have not been persuaded to suspend his sentence. The petition; therefore, is dismissed.
N.H. Q./A-905/L Petition dismissed.