KUNWAR IMAM DIN vs LIAQAT ALI AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the interim order of the Lahore High Court suspending the life imprisonment sentence of the first respondent, who was convicted of murder by the Sessions Court. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's discretion in suspending the sentence pending appeal based on discrepancies in the dying declaration and trial court observations regarding ocular testimony. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the view taken by the High Court in re-examining the appraisal of evidence was both reasonable and within its judicial discretion. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts possess valid discretion to suspend sentences pending appeal when the trial court's appraisal of evidence presents arguable doubts or requires re-examination, warranting no interference by the apex court at the leave stage.
- Whether the High Court has the discretion to suspend a sentence of imprisonment pending the hearing of an appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's order suspending a sentence when the view taken is reasonable and within its discretion?
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL,J.--The first respondent and one Rafique were tried and convicted for murder. And, for the purpose of this petition, it is sufficient to state that the Sessions Court sentenced the first respondent to life imprisonment. The first respondent filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court against his conviction and together with the appeal he filed an application for the suspension of his sentence pending the . Hearing of his appeal. The appeal was admitted. Further, as the sentence of imprisonment wag suspended by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by its order dated, 18-6-1978, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave.
2. According to learned counsel, the prosecution case against the first respondent had been amply proved because it was based on the dying declaration of the deceased, which was supported by ocular evidence. However, in allowing the first respondent's application for bail, the learned Judges of the High Court referred in their order to the discrepancies in the dying declaration about the role played by the first respondent in the occurrence. Next as to the ocular evidence, the learned Judges observed "About the ocular testimony the trial Court's finding is that it was not inclined to believe the eye- witnesses except to the extent they had stated the number of shots fired at the deceased by each accused.
3. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner wants us to draw the inference that even the trial Court was doubtful as to whether Liaqat Ali petitioner had in fact fired a shot at the deceased or as to whether or not it had hit him. Needless to say that no recovery had been effected from Liaqat Ali petitioner. It is observed, by the trial Court that` It is possible in view of declaration that the accused Liaqat may not have fired any shot at the deceased.
4. In view of these observations by the trial Court, the High Court suspended the first respondent's sentence.
5. The sentence was suspended, because the High Court was of the view' that the appraisal of evidence by the trial Court required to be re-examined as it might be contrary to the law repeatedly laid down by this Court. Without going into the merits of the case, we would only observe that the, view taken by the High Court was both reasonable and within its discretion.
6. Therefore, no case has been made out for the grant of special leave and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- JAHANGIR Versus STATE 1999 YLR 2046