DUR MUHAMMAD And Another vs THE STATE
The petitioners filed an application seeking the suspension of their sentences of 25 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 302(c)/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and compensation under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioners made out a fit case for the suspension of execution of sentence pending their appeal. The court granted the suspension of sentence and admitted the petitioners to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds. The decision was rooted in several crucial factors: the advanced age and poor health of the petitioners (aged 75 and 55 years), evidence showing that a co-convict suffered a hatchet blow inflicted by the deceased which prima facie negated premeditation, the occurrence taking place at night without the production of the alleged light source, and the prejudice caused by a protracted trial spanning ten years. The Court affirmed that such cumulative factors justify suspending sentence without delving deeply into the case's merits.
- Whether advanced age, poor health, and a protracted trial constitute valid grounds for the suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Whether a non-premeditated encounter involving injuries caused by the deceased can justify suspending a sentence under Section 302(c) PPC?
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners have been sentenced under section 302(c)/34, P.P.C. 25 years R.I. As Tazir and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 each under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be, paid to the legal heirs of the deceased to the exclusion of Mst. Shukran in default six months R.I. Each in complaint case titled as Shamira son of Abdullah v. Riaz alias Baqir and others based on F.I.R. No. 149 of 1991 dated 10-8-1991 Police Station Sahuka, District Vehari, under section 302/34, P.P.C. They were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, District Vehari vide judgment dated 2-11-2000 and the appellants seek suspension of their sentence on the grounds that both the petitioners Riaz alias Baqir and Dur Muhammad were tried for the murder of Riaz Ahmad son of Shamaira who lodged report at Police Station Sahuka against the appellants and both the appellants were declared innocent during the investigation. The complainant then filed a complaint which was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Burewala District, Vehari who convicted all the four accused. A joint appeal is pending before this Court.
2. Suspension of sentence is sought on the grounds that according to the judgment, itself Saeed Muhammad is 75 years old while Dur Muhammad is 55 and they are having bad health and that Riaz co-convict of the appellant had suffered hatchet blow on his chest and was examined on that very day which was admittedly caused by Riaz deceased which fact completely rules out the possibility of pre-meditated or intentional murder and that it was a night occurrence and the lantern the only source of identification was not produced and that the have suffered protracted trial for 10 years.
3. The suspension is opposed on the ground that prima facie judgment is sufficient to show the guilt of the petitioners.
4. I have given due consideration to the value a arguments on both sides.
5. Without going deep into the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice any side, the old age of both the appellants, their bad health, Riaz co-convict of the appellants having suffered hatchet blow 'on his chest by the deceased, and the occurrence being that of night and the protracted trial of 10 years long, make this case fit for the A suspension of the sentence of both the appellants. As such the petition is allowed and the sentence in respect of Dur Muhamamd son of Sukhera and Said Muhammad son of Muhammad A.I, is suspended subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court.