MANZOOR alias TIWANA vs THE STATE
This petition is directed against an interim order of the Lahore High Court whereby an application filed by the petitioner for the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment during the pendency of his appeal was dismissed on the ground that a previous application had already been dismissed and no fresh ground was made out. The core legal question was whether a subsequent application for suspension of sentence can be entertained when the grounds urged were either available earlier or had already been considered. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretionary order declining the suspension of sentence was well-reasoned and unexceptionable, as the petitioner was specifically attributed the role of stabbing the deceased repeatedly, which required reappraisal of evidence only at the final hearing of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that successive applications for suspension of sentence reiterating previously considered grounds or grounds available at the time of the initial application without valid new justification do not warrant interference by the apex court.
- Whether a subsequent application for suspension of sentence can be entertained when the grounds urged were available during the filing of the previous application?
- Does the attribution of a fatal role like repeated stabbing justify declining the suspension of a life sentence pending appeal?
- Is interference warranted against a discretionary order of the High Court refusing to suspend a criminal sentence without a showing of new legal grounds?
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the interim order, dated 26-2-2002 through which application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment during pendency of this appeal has been dismissed by the Lahore High Court on the ground that his previous application had already been dismissed and no fresh ground had been made out.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the ground which he was trying to urge before the High Court in fresh application was available when he made the previous application but the said ground having not been decided on merits should have been allowed to be argued.
3. The argument has no force. Besides we have gone through order, dated 10-4-2001 passed in the previous application of the petitioner and find that the petitioner had urged all the grounds which he has argued today. It was found that according to the conviction recorded by the trial Judge, the petitioner was attributed the role of stabbing Khalid deceased repeatedly therefore, the submission made by the petitioner regarding his innocence required reappraisal of evidence which may be done at the time of hearing of the appeal.
4. No ground has been made out for interference in the well-reasoned discretionary order passed by the High Court declining plea of suspension of sentence therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.