MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus State
The petitioner Muhammad Arshad sought the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Daska, following his conviction under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the sentence of a convict should be suspended pending appeal when the trial court's judgment reveals apparent deficiencies such as a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence, an untrustworthy motive, and a disbelieved recovery. The Lahore High Court held that where the trial court itself noted these shortcomings, the evidence warranted reappraisal during the hearing of the main appeal. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the sentence was suspended, and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The key principle laid down is that pointing out apparent deficiencies and shortcomings on the face of the judgment itself does not amount to deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage, and warrants the suspension of sentence pending appeal.
- Whether the suspension of sentence can be granted when there is a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
- Does pointing out deficiencies and shortcomings in the trial court judgment amount to deeper appreciation of evidence at the stage of suspension of sentence?
- Whether a convict is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail when the motive and recovery parts of the prosecution story are disbelieved by the trial court itself?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Boota, the petitioner/appellant seeks suspension of sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska; District Sialkot vide his judgment, dated 15-9-2004.
2. The allegation against the petitioner was that while armed with a rifle he had caused injury to Abdul Khaliq at his right flank.
3. The petitioner was tried along with his co-accused under sections 148 and 302/149, P.P.C. However, seven of the co-accused had been acquitted whereas the petitioner was convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also sentenced to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 or in default in the payment whereof to further undergo six months' imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him.
4. Khawaja Awais Mushtaq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgment whereby the conviction and sentence had been recorded against the petitioner. The learned trial Court had itself come to the conclusion that there was conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. A perusal of judgment also reveals that motive part of the story had not been believed. Likewise the alleged recovery from the petitioner had also been disbelieved. There is no substance in the argument of the learned State Counsel that adverting to these points at this stage would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitioner has only pointed out the deficiencies and the shortcomings in the judgment itself.
5. Keeping in view the totality of the facts I am of the view that the evidence on the basis of which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced needs reappraisal during the course of hearing of the main appeal. The case Muhammad Afzal and another v. The State 1994 SCMR 453 advances the plea of the petitioner for suspension of sentence.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended. He shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. He is directed to appear in this Court on each and every date of hearing till the final disposal of the main appeal.
H.B.T./M-381/L Petition allowed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD AMIN and 2 others vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 2205