' SARDAR M. AHRAF KHAN, J.--- This order shall dispose of the applications titled above, as they arise out of a common. Judgment. The appellant-petitioners have been awarded the sentence of 10 years under sections 302, A.P.C., five years' R.I. I under section 392 A.P.C. Along with fine to the tune of Rs,50,000 one month imprisonment under 341, A.P.C. And three years' imprisonment under section 13/20/65, Arms Act. Whereas, Muhammad Asif petitioner was sentenced five years' R.I.
Under section 392, A.P.C., along with fine to the tune of Rs,50,000 under section 341, A.P.C. One month's S.I. And three years' S.I. Under section 13/20/65, Arms Act vide judgment, dated 29-3-2007 passed by District Criminal Court Kotli. Hence these petitions for suspension of the same.
2. I am not inclined to narrate the brief facts of the case, as the same has to be adjudicated to the extent of applications of suspension of sentences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Jaffar Hussain, argued that the judgment of the trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures and no convincing reason has been recorded by the trial Court to award the sentence in this case. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was sentenced ten years in which the basic rule is bail and not jail. The learned counsel zealously argued that the accused-petitioner has not been nominated in the F.I.R. Nor any act has clearly been., attributed to him. Three pistols have been recovered but only One .30-bore pistol was sent to the Fire-arms Expert for verification. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail till the final disposal of the case.
4. As regards the case of Muhammad Asif, accused-petitioner is concerned, Mirza Abdul Aziz Ratalvi, Advocate has submitted that his client has wrongly been sentenced for five years' R.I. Under section 392, A.P.C. Along with fine to the tune of Rs,50,000 under section 341, A.P.C. One month's S.I.
And three years' S.I. Under section 13/20/65, Arms Act without appreciating the evidence on record.
The learned counsel further contended that the case under section 13/20/65, Arms Act was a separate case and the prosecution failed to produce any witness to prove the same and also the accused-petitioner was not examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the trial Court has wrongly convicted him for unknown reasons. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the accused-petitioner has not been nominated in the F.I.R. Nor any act has clearly been attributed to him. Three pistols have been recovered but only one .30 bore pistol was sent to the Firearms Expert for its opinion. Thus, the matter in the light of above circumstances was one which required further consideration. The learned counsel finally prayed that the sentence may be suspended till final adjudication of the appeal.
5. Conversely, the learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any leniency as the presumption of innocence is not in favour of the petitioners and they have been sentenced by the trial Court by finding them guilty of the offences mentioned above.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record of the case and impugned judgment with utmost care.
7. A perusal of the F.I.R., it reveals that the occurrence took place at 10 p.m. On 10-2-2002 and no one has been nominated as accused, soon after the occurrence P. Ws. Iftikhar, Dil Pazeer and Iqbal along with Shakeel, who are stated to have reached at the spot and took the injured persons to Hospital. The P.W. Iftikhar has not been figured in the challan whereas P.W. Iqbal has been given up by the prosecution vide order dated 4-10-2006 and P.W. Dil Pazeer whose name transpires in the F.I.R. Was not examined and his evidence was closed by the trial Court vide its order dated 6-11- 2006.
8. It also appears from the record that three crime weapons were allegedly recovered from accused-appellants Jaffar Hussain, Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Saeed. One .30 bore pistol which was recovered from Muhammad Saeed was sent to the Fire-arms Expert for verification, whereas rest of recovered weapons were not sent. It is also alleged that no specific role has been ascribed to Jaffar Hussain and Muhammad Asif and no evidence has been produced to this fact.
Thus, the matter, in circumstances of the case, was one which required further consideration.
9. The deeper scrutiny of evidence is not warranted by law at this stage as it will affect the merits of the case, however, in view of the circumstances disclosed above and keeping in view the quantum of sentence, the matter requires further consideration thus, the applications for suspension of sentences are allowed and sentences awarded to the petitioners Jaffar Hussain and Muhammad Saeed shall remain under suspension till final adjudication of the appeals. They shall be released forthwith on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rupee one lac each and personal bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of any member of Tehsil Criminal Court Kotli. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. The original appeals shall come up for arguments on 12-6-2007.