SAGHEER BAIG vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Alias ACHHU And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that suspended the conviction and sentence of a respondent convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had been sentenced to life imprisonment, but the High Court granted bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred by focusing exclusively on the respondent's individual act of firing a firearm, while failing to consider the trial court's finding regarding the respondent's shared common intention with others in committing the offence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court's failure to account for the established common intention necessitated further judicial examination. The Court held that the scope and application of powers under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the suspension of sentences in cases involving common intention require a more authoritative pronouncement, warranting a full hearing of the appeal.
- Can a court suspend a conviction and sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without considering the established common intention of the accused?
- Does the scope of powers under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require consideration of the entire evidentiary context, including common intention, when suspending a sentence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 11th of May, 1.986 whereby the respondent No. 1 convicted of an offence under section 302, P.
2. P. C . And sentenced to life imprisonment has been admitted to bail suspending his conviction and sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without adverting to the question of common intention which was held established by the trial Court, the injury caused by fire-arm by the respondent No. 1 could not alone be made the basis for suspending his conviction and sentence.
4. According to the learned counsel no attention whatsoever has been paid to the community of interest, the planning and the common intention which made the respondent equally responsible for the offence.
5. Leave granted.
6. We find that individual act of the respondent No.1 has been made the basis for suspending his conviction and sentence when what stood proved against him was that not only he fired but also the common intention that he shared with others. That aspect of the matter has not been taken note of.
7. We consider that the purpose and scope of the powers conferred under section 426 Cr.P.C.
8. Requires further examination and may call for a more authoritative pronouncement. Hence leave to appeal is granted. This appeal be made ready to be heard along with Criminal Petition No. 266 of 1986 in which leave to appeal has been granted to examine an identical question of law.