GUL HASSAN and 6 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentences and the grant of bail to the appellants pending their appeal against conviction. The appellants were convicted by the trial court for offences including murder and rioting, receiving sentences of life imprisonment and other terms. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances of the incident—described as a free-fight occurring during settlement talks—and the fact that the appellants remained on bail throughout the trial, the sentences should be suspended pending appeal. The Court held that the nature of the incident, which appeared to have occurred on the spur of the moment, and the complex legal question of whether each accused was liable for their individual acts or vicariously liable, warranted the suspension of the sentences. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the appellants, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The principle established is that where the liability of individual accused versus vicarious liability requires deeper examination on appeal, suspension of sentence is appropriate.
- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal when the question of vicarious liability requires further examination?
- Is bail appropriate pending appeal where the accused remained on bail throughout the trial proceedings?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted the listed application under section 426, Cr.P.C. For suspension of sentence awarded to appellants and for their release on bail. His main arguments are that the appellants were on bail while the case was pending for trial and it is a fit case for acquittal on merits.
2. ' Learned State Counsel opposes the suspension of sentence of appellants and their release on bail.
3. ' The F.I.R. In this case was registered on 17-2-1989 for offences under sections 147, 148, 307, 324 and 323, P.P.C. After the trial the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur vide judgment dated 17- 4-1998 convicted the appellants for offences under sections 149, 302, 323 and 324, P.P.C. Read with section 149, P.P.C. And sentenced all the accused/appellants under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 149, P.P.C. And ' sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay tine of Rs,20,000 or in case of default to suffer R.I. For two years more. Learned trial Judge also convicted all the accused for offences under section 148, P.P.C. And sentenced them to suffer R.I. For six months more. The accused/appellants were also convicted for offence under section 323 read with section 149, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For three months more. He further convicted them for offence under section 324 read with section 149, P.P.C. And sentenced to them to suffer R.I. For six months more Learned trial Judge ordered that all th. ,entences shall run concurrently.
4. ' Learned Advocate for appellants has produced certified copies of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses to show that it was a free-fight between the parties.
5. ' Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur in the impugned judgment while discussing point No,1 has mentioned that Medical Officer had stated that on external examination he found only one incised injury on the person of deceased. The injury to deceased Zulfiqar Ali is attributed to accused Golo. According to F.I.R. Golo and Akbar had hatchets. The incident had taken place while settlement talks was being arranged between the parties and during the talks there was quarrel.
6. So, firstly the incident had taken place on the spur of moment about 9 years back. The appellants were on bail during trial proceedings and the question whether each on one was liable to the extent of his own act or each one was vicariously liable requires examination. I, therefore, suspend the sentence of the accused/appellants and they shall be released on bail subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) by each applicant and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of thislA Court.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAHID AMIN vs THE STATE 2003 YLR 3124