Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2016 SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner, Anjum Ghaffar has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life, beside, two years rigorous imprisonment under section 148, P.P.C. And ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased, Muhammad Imran or in default thereof, to undergo six months' simple imprisonment, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., vide judgment dated 4.2.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. It all happened on conclusion of his trial in case FIR No.456/2010, dated 17.6.2010, under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties And perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner, according to initial allegation as contained in FIR (Exh.PA/1), made a fire shot off his pistol .30-bore, which hit left thigh of Muhammad Imran (deceased), after it pierced across the wooden door. The prosecution, however, changed its position as regards the said allegation And amended locale of injury to read as right thigh by keeping in view the medical evidence, that showed no independent firearm entry wound on left thigh/leg of the deceased. Dr.Nayyar Imran Haider (P.W.2) gave description of injuries of the deceased as under:-- "1-A. Fire arm lacerated wound 3/4 x 3/4 c.m. on outer and upper side of right thigh with inverted margins, going deep (wound of entry).
1-B. Fire arm lacerated wound with everted margins on inner side of right thigh, 3 c.m. from groin region, glancing injury of scrotum, 3/4 x 3/4 c. m. with inverted margins on inner side of left thigh, and made exit 6 c.m. from wound of entry.
2. Fire arm lacerated wound 3/4 x 3/4 c.m. just above left iliac crest, outer part."
Learned trial court has observed in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment that both the eye- witnesses (P.W.1 & P.W.3) had improved upon their previous statements, recorded by the police, by deposing that second fire shot made by Anjum Ghaffar accused (petitioner) landed at right thigh of the deceased, but it observed at the same moment that "it is unreasonable to expect photographic memory from the eye-witnesses." Quoted part of this observation is necessarily related to a detailed scrutiny of prosecution evidence. The motive part of the prosecution case went unestablished, as concluded by the learned trial court in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment. Nothing could be recovered at the instance of the petitioner despite he underwent physical remand for fourteen (14) days with the police. Having been arrested on 28.5.2013, he has continuously been in jail since then. There is no substance in the argument of the learned law officer that adverting to the above-said points, at this stage, would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence, inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitioner has only pointed out the deficiencies in the judgment itself.
3. Keeping in view the prosecution case as a whole, I am of the view that the evidence on the basis of which the petitioner has been convicted And sentenced needs detailed reappraisal thereof at the time of hearing of the main appeal. The judgment, Muhammad Afzal and another v. The State (1994 SCM R 453) fortifies the petitioner's plea for suspension of his sentence.
4. For the discussion supra, this petition is allowed And the sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended. He shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. He shall appear on each And every date of hearing of the main appeal.