Petitioner Muhammad Yaseen along with his co-accused Muhammad Rafique was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal in case FIR No, 306/2006 dated 12.05.2006 under Sections 302, 460, 34, PPC registered at Police Station Noor Shah District Sahiwal, The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 10.9.2009 convicted the petitioner under Sections 302-B/34, PPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs, 50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default to further undergo three months S. I. He was also convicted under Sections 460/34, PPC and was sentenced to 10-years R.I. Benefit of Section 382B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the petitioner. Co-accused Muhammad Rafique was also convicted under Section 302, 460/34, PPC and was sentenced to death and life imprisonment respectively.
Through this petition petitioner seeks suspension of his sentence.
2. According to prosecution own case co-accused Muhammad Rafique fired with 12 bore gun hitting on chest and right hand of ljaz deceased. It is alleged that the petitioner being empty handed was also accompanying his co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already served out 7-years of his sentence. Further contends that judgment was announced by the trial Court on 10.9.2009 and the petitioner filed the appeal on 1.1.2010 and more than 2 1/2 years have passed since his conviction but his appeal has not been decided nor there is any chance of its early hearing.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail petition while arguing that petitioner was sharing the common intention with his co-accused and he was available at the place of occurrence. His co-accused was having illegal liaison with the wife of the deceased.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. According to the prosecution own case, the petitioner had, not caused any injury to the deceased. He was empty handed at the time of occurrence. Although, it is mentioned in the FIR that he also tried to capture the deceased but no bruise or scratch was available on the person of the deceased which could indicate that the petitioner had tried to capture the deceased. The question of sharing the common intention will be determined at the time of hearing of the appeal.
But presently due to above mentioned reasons, petitioner became entitled for the suspension of his sentence.
The trial Court had decided the case on 10.09.2009 and more than 2(1/2) years have passed since the conviction of the petitioner but his appeal could not be decided without and fault on the part of the petitioner. In that eventuality, petitioner also became entitle for the suspension of his sentence under Section 426(1-A), Cr.P.C. He is not responsible for delay in hearing of his appeal in any manner and his case does not fall within proviso to (1-A) of Section 426, Cr.P.C. Consequently, without touching the merits of the appeal, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended on statutory ground subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (two lace) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court.
Petitioner shall appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing till the final disposal of main appeal.