CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 1 OF 2024.
MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J. Through the instant petition under Section 426 Cr.P.C., petitioner, Arslan Ali seeks suspension of his sentences awarded to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh, in a private complaint under Sections 302, 324, 337-D, 337-F(ii), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 148, 149 P.P.C in case FIR No. 253/2019, dated 18.10.2019, Police Station Noor Kot Shakargarh, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal, vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2022 whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 302(b) P.P.C: "Imprisonment for life with compensation of Rs. 20,000,000/- under section 544-A of Cr.P.C to the legal heirs of decased and in case of default in payment of compensation, to further undergo six months S.I."
Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C was extended to the convict.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Petitioner was under the allegation that he caused injury with Churri on the left side of chest of deceased Muhammad Aslam who succumbed to the injuries. The role assigned to the present petitioner was claimed by the learned counsel for the complainant as desperate act. According to him, when stab wound is repeated, offender cannot be given a lenient view for concession of bail or suspension of sentence. Therefore, opinion of the Court should be in favour of the complainant side because two repeated incised wounds made liable the petitioner as desperate offender.
Learned LPG has also opposed this petition on similar grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence and all the PWs are blood relatives of each other, even motive has also not been proved during the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that sentence of co-accused, namely, Farhan Ali and Kamran alias alias Hannan has already been suspended by this Court through order dated 29.03.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. No 01 of 2022 and order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 01 of 2023 of Criminal Appeal No. 28939-J of 2022. Petitioner was arrested on 07.11.2019, judgment was pronounced on 29.03.2022 and since then, his appeal has not been taken for regular hearing. It has been observed that on 16.06.2022, the appeal was admitted for regular hearing and then was taken up for 20.09.2022 wherein complainant side, sought adjournment and it was never fixed again, therefore, delay is not attributed to the appellant/petitioner that's why learned counsel for the petitioner also urges this petition on statutory ground as well. According to Section 426(1-A)(c) Cr.P.C. the appeal of the petitioner (undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life) had to be decided within a period of two years of his conviction but as stated above the same could not be done here in this case and delaying decision of the appeal is not attributable to the petitioner. Considering the heavy backlog, the main appeal to the petitioner relating to the year 2022 is not likely to be taken up for hearing in near future as well. From tentative assessment of the trial court judgment, it can conveniently be observed that case of the A petitioner does not attract the proviso to section 426 (A-1) Cr.P.C as he cannot be termed as hardened, desperate or a dangerous criminal nor he is previous convict of any offence punishable for death or imprisonment for life nor an accused of an offence of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life.In this view of the matter, per force of section 426 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has earned a right for suspension of his sentence, as the use of word "shall' section 426(1-A) Cr.P.C makes mandatory for the Court to grant sup relief to the convict unless the case of the petitioner falls in exception mentioned in proviso to above said sub- section and stated above, no such exception could be found in the instant case. Reliance is placed on judgments reported as "Sultan Mehmood v. Kaleem Ullah and others" 2007 SCMR 91 and Mazhar alias Mazharee and 3 others v. The State 1997 MLD 2881. Principles of bail are applicable on petition for suspension of sentence as held by Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as "Mzhar Ahmed v. The State and another 2012 SCMR 997 and "Iftikhar Ahmed v. The State and others" 2014 SCMR 7. Whereas, in the recent case "Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1555 the Supreme Court of Pakistan has upheld the order of High Court for suspension of sentence while observing that Section 497 Cr.P.C is pari-materia to Section 426 Cr.P.C., therefore, benefit of doubt, if any, can also be extended at the stage of suspension of sentence.
Consequential, this application is allowed and sentence of the petitioner is suspended. He shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000,000/- (five lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. He shall remain incessant in appearing before this Court till the final decision of main appeal.