This is an application for the suspension of the execution of the sentence. Muhammad Arif petitioner was convicted under section 304, Part I, P. P. C. And sentenced to 5 years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 2,000. In default thereof to further R. I. For one year.
2. The learned counsel contends that the prosecution evidence having disbelieved, it is a fit case for the suspension of the execution of sentence. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgment, find that in Para No. 24 of the judgment, the learned trial Court has stated that ---Now the next point to be considered is whether in the circumstances of the case Arif accused was within his right to cause such an injury in the exercise of right of self-defence. Whatever weapon Arif may be holding in his hand may be the iron rod Exh. P. 4 or a dang or any other blunt weapon. However, the force with which the injury has been caused may be imagined from the fact that as a result of the said injury the skull of the deceased was fractured from left frontal region up to the right temporal region and subdural haemorrage was present on the right hemisphere.
Interior part of right hemisphere was compressed alongwith the component region of the right side. The fact that none of the accused have received any grievous hurt and it is only one of the accused, who has been able to show one minor simple injury on his person manifestly shows that an injury of the type on the person of the deceased on the delicate part of his body like head was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly I hold that from the ocular evidence discussed above though the rest of the accused cannot be held guilty nevertheless Arif accused is proved to be liable under section 304, Part 1, P. P. C. And I hold accordingly.--- Although not stated in so many words, yet it appears that the learned trial Court has convicted Muhammad Arif under section 304-Part 1, P.P.C. For having exceeded the right of self-defence.
4. Since the question, whether in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner had exceeded the right of self-defence or not is involved in this appeal, I am of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if without expressing any opinion on merits, the execution of the sentence is suspended. The petitioner is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Sheikhupura.