IKHLAQ AHMAD And Another vs The STATE
The petitioners, convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought suspension of their sentence from the Supreme Court after the High Court had previously refused their application pending the disposal of their appeal. The core legal question addressed was whether the Supreme Court should intervene to suspend a sentence while an appeal remains pending before the High Court. The Court held that it is inappropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene or express an opinion on the merits of a case while the appeal is still pending before the High Court. Consequently, the petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed. However, the Court observed that, given the petitioners' arguments regarding the merits of their case and the potential for acquittal, the High Court should endeavor to hear the pending appeal at an early date. The key principle established is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to suspend a sentence or interfere in matters currently sub judice before the High Court, preferring that the appellate process take its course.
- Should the Supreme Court suspend a sentence while an appeal against conviction is pending before the High Court?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to comment on the merits of a case while the appeal is sub judice before the High Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The petitioners have been convicted under Section 302/34 PPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They filed an appeal before the High Court which is still pending. Meanwhile, they also applied to the High Court for suspending their sentence pending disposal of their aforesaid appeal. This was refused on 10-5-1986. They have now approached this Court with the same prayer. '
2. Obviously it will not be appropriate for this Court to say anything in such a case when the matter is pending before the High Court in appeal.
3. However, the learned counsel argued that he has a very strong case on merits and the accused are likely to be acquitted and their continued incarceration in jail is most unjust. Hence the appeal filed by them before the High Court should at least be heard very early, namely, within a month or so.
4. This is a matter for the learned High Court. We may, however, observe that if possible the appeal filed by the petitioners in the High Court may be heard at a very early date.
5. This petition, with these observations, stands dismissed.