Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLD 1994 Lahore 198

FATEH MUHAMMAD And Another vs THE STATE

CitationPLD 1994 Lahore 198
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Appeal No.826 of 1990 Civil Miscellaneous No.2 of 1993
Date-
Judge(s)Raja Afrasiab Khan, Sh. Ijaz Nisar
ResultOrder accordingly

SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Fateh Muhammad and Khan Muhammad were tried along with Gulbaz co- accused for the murder of Muhammad Riaz deceased and making a murderous assault on Muhammad Mumtaz P.W. With fire-arms. By judgment dated 26-11-1990, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab convicted them under sections 302, 307/34, P.P.C. Fateh Muhammad and Khan Muhammad were awarded imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs.20,000 each or in default to undergo further R.I. For one year each. Under section 307/34, P.P.C., they were awarded five years'

R.I. Each with a fine, of Rs.5,000 each or in default thereof to further undergo six months' R.I. Each.

Their co-accused Gulbaz was awarded death sentence.

2. Fateh Muhammad and Khan Muhammad have applied for suspension of their sentences under section 426(1-A)(C), Cr.P.C. On the ground that ever since their conviction dated 26-11-1990, they are in jail and the appeal, filed by them, has not yet been disposed of.

3. The learned trial Court had adjudged them guilty for the murder of Muhammad Riaz deceased and murderously assaulting Muhammad Mumtaz P.W. With gun shots. However, they were awarded lesser sentence provided for the offence of murder because they were the only sons of their parents.

4. It is a settled proposition of law that bail is to be allowed if the appeal is not disposal of within two years, but the same could also be refused for the reasons to be recorded. In Shahbaz v. The State 1992 SCM R 1903, it was observed that "under section 426 (1-A), the Court is empowered decline to suspend the sentence or grant bail for any reason, which it may consider just and proper but such reason should have nexus with the paramount object to avert commission of any further offence by the convict".

5. In the present case, although the statutory period is over, nevertheless we do not consider the petitioners entitled to the suspension of sentence because we arc directing the office to fix the appeal within a period of for months. If the appeal is not disposed of within the period, mentioned above, the petitioners may apply again for suspension of sentence.

The application is dismissed with the above direction

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