MUHAMMAD ASIF JAN, J. - Nazir Ahmad alias Pappa aged about 25 years petitioner has been convicted under section 302 P.P.C, and sentenced to imprisonment for life by an Additional Sessions Judge of Sahiwal vide judgment/order dated the 5th of September, 1994, for having murdered one Zahid Riaz aged about 22 years, on the 4th of August, 1992, at 9-00. p.m. In the Jahaz ground, which is about one mile from Police Station City of Sahiwal District where the first information report was lodged on the same night at about 9-45 p.m. By Riaz Hussain Shah, father of the deceased.
2. The specific role attributed to Nazir Ahmad, alias Pappa petitioner is to the effect that while armed with a dagger ( ) (P.3) which was recovered vide memorandum Ex.P.E. On the 22nd of August, 1992, he inflicted a blow on the right side of the front of the chest of Zahid Riaz deceased resulting in his death.
3. The petitioner has appealed against his conviction and sentence by Way of Criminal Appeal NoPi69 of 1994, dated 3rd of October, 1994, which is pending in this Court The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail under section 426 Cr.P.C, on the ground that the petitioner's version has not been seen in juxtaposition to the prosecution version and that as a matter of fact the petitioner acted in exercise of the right of private defence of person and that the said plea of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected by the trial Court In this context learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the cases oi Faqir Muhammad v. Akbar, etc., reported in 1979 S.C.M.R. 270,Kela and others v. The State, reported in 1968 P.Cr.L.J, 185 and Altaf Hussain Shah v. The State, reported in 1986 P.Cr.L.J. 2202.
4. In the case of Faqir Muhammad v. Akbar, etc. (1979 S.C.M.R. 270) their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to Observe that:- "We do not think it proper to embark upon a detailed examination of the case at this stage "
In the case of Kela and others v. The State (1968 P.Cr.L.J. 185) the petitioner had been sentenced to R.I. For 5 years by a Section 30 Magistrate.
This case is, therefore, clearly not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In the third case of Altaf Hussain Shah v. The State (1986 P.Cr.L.J. 2202) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Altaf Hussain Shah petitioner was a serving Sub-Inspector of Police whose sentence was suspended and who was released on bail because their Lordships were pleased to observe in paragraph 6 of the said judgment that:-- "We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the complainant There is no denying the fact that it was a complaint case. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 22.11.1981 while the' complaint was filed on 8.5.1982. Before the filing of the complaint a judicial inquiry was held in respect of the occurrence by Sh. Ghazanfar Hussain, Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) Sargodha. The Inquiry Officer observed "that the police was justified in resorting to firing and that there was no deliberate Intention to kill anyone. No criminal liability had been incurred by the police. In these circumstances, the registration of a criminal case against the police was uncalled for." He further 'mentioned in the said inquiry report that the police party was assaulted which compelled them to use force not only to make the deceased and his companions to comply with the law but also to defend themselves. The Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali had concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and had observed that the police have rightly acted in their self-defence and that in the circumstances the registration of a criminal case was uncalled for".
The facts and attending circumstances of Altaf Hussain Shah's case are clearly distinguishable from tie case of Nazir Ahmad alias Pappa petitioner.
5. The basic principle remains and continues to be that after conviction by a competent Court, the presumption of innocence comes to an end, at least for the time being. An indepth examination and detailed appreciation of evidence can only be carried out when the appeal is heard and decided. When suspension of sentence is sought on merits before the appeal, it is undertaking an exercise which is essentially premature and is like putting the cart before the horse which is certainly not the purpose of law.
6. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.