MUBARAK ALI And Another vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner, Sakhi Muhammad, seeking suspension of his sentence pending the hearing of his main appeal. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with a compensation order. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail given the absence of specific allegations regarding physical injury and the unlikelihood of the main appeal being heard in the near future. The Court observed that the petitioner was not attributed any specific injury to the deceased or prosecution witnesses, and that the issue of common intention remained to be determined at the final hearing. Holding that the petitioner could not be compensated for time served if ultimately acquitted, the Court allowed the application. The key principle established is that where an appeal is unlikely to be heard soon and the petitioner's specific role in the offense is contested, the suspension of sentence is appropriate to prevent irreparable loss of liberty.
- Is the suspension of sentence permissible when the main appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future?
- Does the absence of a specific role attributed to a convict in the FIR justify the suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Can a convict be released on bail if the determination of common intention requires a full hearing of the appeal?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Criminal Miscellaneous No 1 of 2003 This application has been tiled for suspension of sentence of the petitioner who stands convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life, with a direction to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased, in default whereof to further undergo imprisonment for six months.
2. It is contended that petitioner Sakhi Muhammad has not caused any injury to the deceased or to P.W. He is simply named in the F.I.R. Without specific role. It is also contended that there is no likelihood of hearing of the main appeal in near future and if ultimately the petitioner is acquitted, the period he had undergone in jail cannot be compensated.
3. The learned counsel for State has opposed the petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment.
5. Admittedly the petitioner has not caused any injury to any P.W. Or to the deceased. Whether he shared the common intention or not, will be seen at the time or hearing of the main appeal.
Though the petitioner has been convicted but there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future and petitioner if ultimately acquitted, he cannot be compensated for the period he will undergo in jail due to pendency of appeal.
6. In view of the above, we allow this petition, suspend the sentence of the petitioner and order his release on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.