HAQ NAWAZ and another vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioners' application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of their appeal. The petitioners had been convicted under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioners argued for suspension of sentence on the grounds of a conflict between medical and ocular evidence, a plea of alibi, and the difficulty in determining whose shot was fatal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that evaluating which petitioner's shot caused the fatal injury would require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the stage of suspension of sentence. Finding no illegality in the High Court's order, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Can a court engage in a deeper appreciation of evidence at the stage of considering an application for suspension of sentence?
- Whether the inability to determine which co-accused fired the fatal shot is a sufficient ground for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ABDUL FIAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order dated 8-11-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Cr.M.No,1 of 2001 in Criminal Appeal No,974 of 2001 whereby the same was dismissed and the sentence of imprisonment for life was not suspended.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioners alongwith other accused, namely, Fida Hussain, Riaz Hussain alias Raza and Niaz Hussain were sent up to face trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhakkar, who on conclusion of the' trial, convicted the petitioner under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life each with a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default to further undergo S.I.For one year each. The remaining accused were acquitted.
3. The petitioner assailed the judgment in appeal before the Lahore High Court, wherein he preferred the application for suspension of the sentence mainly on the ground that there was conflict between the medical and the ocular evidence and that they were not present at the spot and pleaded the plea of alibi with the documentary evidence.
4. Mirza Masood-ur-Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners mainly contended that even according to the judgment of the trial Court, the injury sustained by the deceased was attributed to both the petitioners, so it was difficult to ascertain as to whose shot became fatal and caused the death of deceased.
5. We do not find any force in the arguments as it amounts to deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at the stage of suspension of sentence. Moreover, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order which is accordingly maintained.
6. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.