FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs AKBAR Etc.S
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had suspended the sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the respondents by an Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court granted this relief primarily because the plea of self-defence required further examination, given that the prosecution failed to explain the significant number of injuries sustained by the accused. The petitioner contended that the recovery of bloodstained earth from the deceased's land indicated the accused were the aggressors and that the trial court's conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code was sound. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the High Court's order. The Court held that it was not appropriate to conduct a detailed re-examination of the evidence at the leave-to-appeal stage, particularly when the High Court had exercised its discretion in a manner that did not appear improper given the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that appellate courts should be cautious in disturbing the exercise of judicial discretion regarding bail suspension unless clearly erroneous.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretion in suspending a sentence pending appeal?
- Is the plea of self-defence a valid ground for suspending a sentence if the prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused?
- Does the recovery of bloodstained earth from the deceased's land conclusively negate a plea of self-defence at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated the 24th August,1977, whereby the sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the respondents herein by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, were suspended, subject to their furnish--ing bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sahiwal.
2. The main reason given by the High Court is that the plea of self-defence needed examination in view of the fairly large number of injuries sustained by the aide of the accused, which had not been explained by the prosecution.
3. Mr. S. A. Steed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plea of self-defence stands negatived by the fact that bloodstained earth war recovered from the land of the deceased, thus clearly indicating that the accused were the aggressors. He contends that the trial Court had given good reasons for recording a conviction under section 302, P. P. C.
4. We do not think it proper to embark upon a detailed examination of the case at this stage. Suffice it to say that the learned Judge in the High Court does not appear to have exercised his discretion improperly in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.