Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2014 P Cr. L J 921

SHAH NAWAZ and another vs The STATE

Citation2014 P Cr. L J 921
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Appeal No,444 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,841-M of 2013
Date2013-12-10
Judge(s)Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu
Resultpetition accepted

' For slaying of Hamid Ashraf (deceased), petitioner-appellant, Sarfraz Ahmad along with his co- appellant Shah Nawaz was recommended for prosecution to trial followed by conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 12-10-2013, handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi infra:-- {{TABLE}} Under section 302(b) Pakistan Penal Code Life Imprisonment as Ta'zir for committing Qatl-e-amd of Hamid Ashraf deceased and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lac) as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.

And in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. {{TABLE}}

2. The petitioner-appellant as being pro-convicto, by filing the accompanying appeal has sought acquittal and through the instant petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. Has solicited for bail by suspending the quantum of sentence till final decision of pending appeal.

3. Sententiously the allegations of the prosecution are that the petitioner along with his co- appellant assassinated Hamid Ashraf by causing him fire shot injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant precative to the acceptance of instant petition has submitted that the petitioner was alleged to have held a pistol and raised a lalkara at the time of occurrence but did not cause any injury with the same to the deceased and that during the investigation, mauger enduring physical remand, pistol was not recovered from his possession; partway investigation, he was found innocent; all the injuries allegedly ascribed to him on account of grappling with the deceased have pontificately been admitted by the doctor to have been sustained by the deceased on account of fall, which are simple in nature and being not contributive to the cause of death of the deceased petition is liable to be accepted. At the end of arguments as ace, learned counsel has submitted that co-appellant has allegedly caused the death of the deceased by making a fire shot.

5. Adversarially, it has been argued that the police opinion cannot be undertaken at this stage as the learned trial court has overthrown it; injuries attributed to the petitioner are in sync with the postmortem report of the deceased; applicability of section 34, P.P.C. Has rightly been purported to its another interpretation, while punishing the petitioner and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner tickle the Court to die down in the merits of the case but the law prohibits the Court particularly when in the recent past, the petitioner has been punished. Learned counsel has orchestrated his argument's by relying upon Manzoor Ahmed v. Fazal Ahmed and 3 others (2013 SCM R 1403) has venerably craved dismissal of the petition.

6. Assiduously arguments heard. Intently record gone through.

7. As per prosecution's own case, the petitioner was holding a pistol at the time of occurrence but he did not cause any injury with the same to the deceased. Mortal fire shot injury has been attributed to co- A appellant. The injuries allegedly attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature but not contributive to the death of the deceased and about the same, the doctor has explicitly opined that those might be on account of fall. For the injuries alleged against the petitioner, the learned trial Court has not convicted him. In these circumstances, when the alleged lalkara remained simpliciter, the applicability of section 34, P.P.C. Requires serious appreciation and ex facie, material/circumstances available justify accepting the instant petition. Since yore, adage of law is that the accused is a favourate child of law.

8. In view of the above, instant petition is accepted, quantum of sentence inflicted upon the petitioner-appellant is suspended, thus, he is allowed bail provided his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.

9. Markedly it is described that the petitioner shall remain incessant in appearing before this Court till the final decision of his appeal. #EndJudgment

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch