RIZWAN ZAFAR vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the High Court refusing to suspend the petitioner's sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The petitioner was tried under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but was ultimately convicted by the Sessions Judge under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for firing at and grievously hurting a prosecution witness. The core legal question is whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to suspend the petitioner's sentence while suspending the sentence of a co-convict. The Supreme Court held that no case for interfering with the High Court's discretion was made out, distinguishing the petitioner's case from that of the co-convict due to the substantially different sentence lengths. The key principle laid down is that the suspension of sentence during appeal is a matter of judicial discretion, and differential treatment of co-convicts is justified where their respective sentences and cases are distinguishable.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing to suspend a sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
- Is the suspension of a co-convict's sentence a binding precedent for granting similar relief to another convict with a substantially different sentence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner alongwith six other persons was tried by the Session Judge, Sargodha for offences falling under sections 302 and 307, read with section 149, and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge found that each of the accused was responsible for his own individual act and that the attack on the complainant party had not been made in prosecution of a common object. The petitioner was found to have fired at Muhammad Sharif P.W; accordingly, he was convicted of an offence under section 326 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years in addition of fine. He filed an appeal before the High Court alongwith the other convicts and also made a prayer for the suspension of his sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court declined to suspend hip sentence. From the order of the High Court in this regard he seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There is evidence against the petitioner which has been believed by the trial Court that he fired at and grievously hurt a member of the complainant party. The sentence awarded to him is fairly substantial. No case for interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court has been made out.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the High Court has suspended the sentence of one of the co-convicts, namely, Fateh Haidar. It is to be noticed that Fateh Haidar was convicted of the offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years.' Thus the sentence awarded to him was comparatively shorter. This is one of the grounds which has prevailed with the High Court in suspending his sentence. Clearly the case of Fateh Haidar is distinguishable from that of the petitioner.
4. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.