' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---Briefly stated the facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition filed under section 426, Cr.P.C. Seeking suspension of sentence are that the petitioner was tried and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge Dera Ghazi Khan by means of judgment dated 5-8-2005 and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. The petitioner was also sentenced to pay compensation of Rs, 1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in case of default to further undergo three years imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was granted to the petitioner.
2. According to the prosecution case the complainant was running a confectionary shop along with his brothers Rashid Ahmed, Nisar Ahmed and Shakeel Ahmed. That on 6-2-2005 at about 4-00 a.m. The petitioner (accused person) a previous employee of the complainant came to the shop and inflicted a blow with a dagger to Rasheed Ahmed (deceased) hitting him below his chest and causing his death. The petitioner ran away from the shop while brandishing his dagger. The occurrence was witnessed by two brothers of the complainant namely Nisar Ahmed and Shakeel Ahmed. Motive for the occurrence being the petitioner harboured a grudge against the deceased for throwing him out of service.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case was registered against the petitioner by the complainant who is a rich and an influential person. The deceased wanted to commit sodomy with the petitioner and during a scuffle which ensued the deceased sustained an injury and died. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner could not have been convicted by the trial court since the prosecution case was not believed in toto. According to the prosecution the petitioner had bad habits but no details of these habits were furnished by the complainant when he entered the witness box. The petitioner caused only one injury and did not inflict multiple injuries to the deceased with his dagger. There is nothing on the record to show why the petitioner was removed unceremoniously from service. The prosecution evidence when gone through in its entirety does not inspire confidence. If the prosecution evidence is disbelieved then the defence version of the accused person in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has to be believed in toto. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied upon Muhammad Amin alias Naeem v..The State 2005 YLR 1757.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is guilty of committing a heinous offence in as much as he inflicted an injury with his dagger to the deceased his former employer ultimately causing his death. Blood stained dagger was recovered from the petitioner on his pointing out. Evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved and there is no likelihood of conviction being set aside when the main appeal comes up for hearing.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Stated that the deceased tried to commit sodomy with him, since he resisted the deceased attacked him with a dagger, however in the scuffle which ensued the deceased sustained an injury which ultimately caused his death.
The petitioner further stated that he fled from the scene of occurrence and subsequently surrendered himself before the police authorities. The statement made by the petitioner under section 342, Cr.P.C. Does not inspire confidence. According to the petitioner a scuffle took place however he did not sustain even a minor injury. The deceased sustained a serious injury inflicted with a dagger which went deep into his body. A single injury going very deep into the body of the deceased could not have been sustained by him if he was grappling with the petitioner and both of them were in very close proximity to each other. According to the medical evidence the deceased had become unconscious immediately after sustaining the injury. Had the eyewitnesses not been present at the place of occurrence, the deceased could not have been shifted to the hospital so swiftly. Both the eyewitnesses took the deceased to the hospital along with the complainant. The eyewitnesses had no previous enmity with the petitioner and would not have falsely deposed against him.
7. The petitioner committed a heinous offence by inflicting a serious injury with a dagger to the deceased. Bail is not to be allowed to a convicted person as a matter of right, moreso where he is guilty of having committed a heinous offence. After recording of conviction the status of an 'accused person' changes and the judgment of the trial court convicting him is not to be suspended in the absence of a glaring illegality or a patent error which is apparent from the record as has been held in Rafique Ahmad alias Shika v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 193. Minor discrepancies in the prosecution evidence cannot be the basis of suspending the sentence awarded to an accused person. It is trite that there can be no detailed scrutiny of evidence at this stage and only a tentative assessm ent of evidence is to be made. The learned counsel for the petitioner pressed into service a judgment of this court titled Muhammad Amin alias Naeem v. The State 2005 YLR 1757, however the same would be of no avail since in this case the prosecution evidence was not disbelieved by the trial court and only some minor discrepancies were pointed out.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition being without any merit is dismissed. 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.