JUDGMENT TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J.- This is an application for suspension of sentence of Ghulam Nabi son of Allah Rakha and Hazoor Bakhsh son of Muhammad Siddiq who stand convicted u/Ss. 304/34, PPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanpur in a case FIR No. 175/92 Police Station Zahir Pir, Tehsil Khanpur, District Rahimyar khan and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution story as stated in the FIR briefly stated is that, on the fateful day and time, the complainant and his brother Ayyaz Ahmad were awake in their courtyard and other PWs were also present. A person came in i.e the courtyard carrying a. 12 bore gun. He accompanied by other two persons. They fired shots at Ghulam Muhammad and Khaliq Ahmad and in exchange Ghulam Muhammad also fired. Ayyaz and Ghulam Sarwar were hit on the chest and head by the firing of those assailants. Thereafter they ran' away. Ayyaz and Ghulam Sarwar were taken to the hospital but they could not survive.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined nineteen witnesses including the doctor, the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate who supervised the test identification parade.
4. PW1, PW7 and PW8 are witnesses of identification of shoes left by one of the assailants at the place of occurrence. PW9, PW10; and PW 11 are eyewitnesses and are also the witnesses of identification parade. PW4 and PWS are witnesses of recovery of pistol from Ghulam Nabi and Hazoor Bakhsh convicts- appellants.
5. Three accused were tried. Ghulam Nabi alias Hafazi and Hazoor Bakhsh (petitioners) were convicted u/S. 302/34, PPC and sentenced to life ' imprisonment as Tazir on two counts. They were also held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on each count as compensation to the legal heirs of both ,the deceased in default of which they were to go R1 for another six months. The third accused, namely, Nazar Ahmad, was however, acquitted.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners had prayed for suspension of sentence on the following grounds ;-
(i) That the appellants-petitioners have been convicted on circumstantial evidence which does not inspire confidence;
(ii) That the so-called witnesses who identified the convicts during the identification parade did not ascribe any role to them;
(iii) That identification parade itself was held three and a half months after the arrest of the convicts which is not worthy of much credit.
7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has not opposed the prayer as, according to him, there are infirmities in impugned judgment which would call for reappraisal of evidence.
8. Although the. Appellants-convicts stand convicted u/S. 302/34, PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life yet a Court of appeal can suspend a sentence where it is of the view that the appraisal of evidence by the Trial Court needed examination and that the said appraisal is against the law laid down. But while doing so, it would confine itself to those infirmities in the judgment which would show that conviction and sentence were not sustainable.
This is in line with the view taken by this Court in 1986 P. Cr.L.J. 2202 (Altaf Hussan $hah v. The State).
This Division Bench's order is in fact based on a judgment of the Honorables Supreme Court reported in 1978 SCM R 149 (Abdul Ghaffar v. Anwarul Hassan, etc.) wherein it was observed:- "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- S. 426-Sentence, suspension of-Bail-High Court, to avoid prejudicing hearing of appeal, referring in its order to fact of case against first respondent, being based solely on circumstantial evidence- High Court further observing evidence relied upon by prosecution to be . Not relevant to respondent's guilt and other evidence thought relevant yeit weak-Identity of dead body also observed to be not established- High Court, held, carefully examined judgment under appeal and allowed bail on being satisfied as to sufficient cause being made out for the action under S. 426 and express assessm ent of prosecution case not given to avoid prejudging hearing of appeal."
In a case reported in 1989 P. Cr:L.J. 236 (Karamatullah v. The State) sentence of the convict was suspended as the identity of the assailants was found to be doubtful.
9. Coming to the facts of the present case in the light of the afore-referred precedent case law, I am of the view that the convicts-petitioners have made out a case for suspension of sentence for following reasons which arise out of the infirmities in the judgment in the light of which the conviction may not be sustainable:-
(i) Admittedly the prosecution witnesses could not identify the assailants at night. They could not mention even the features of the assailants.
(ii) While discussing the evidence of identification of the appellants, the learned Trial Court up para I6 of the judgment observed:- "Neither in the proceedings nor during the statements before the Court the PWs ascribed any role to any of the two accused which they performed at the time of occurrence."
Without commenting deeper on this dimension of the prosecution evidence, where no role is ascribed to the accused by the witnesses who identified them, the evidentiary value of the identification parade loses credibility. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of the Honorables Supreme Court reported in 1988 SCM R 557 (Ghulam Rasool and three others v. The State) wherein it was held:- "Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 9-Identification parade-Role of accused at the of commission of offence not described by witness. Inherent defect-Evidence of witness identifying accused in such identification parade lost its efficacy and not relied upon."
(iii) The appellants-petitioners in this case were arrested on 1.12.1992 however, it is in evidence that they joined investigation on 6,10.1992.
Discussing this aspect of the prosecution case, the learned Trial Court referred to the statement of PW 12 Rana Aqeel MIC who supervised. The test identification parade and PW I6 Khurshid Alam, Inspector and observed as fol lows:- "He further added that he had gone through the police file according to which the accused joined police investigation in .The presence of prosecution witnesses on 6.10.1992. Khurshid Alam Inspector (PW I6) said during cross-examination that the accused Ghulam Nabi and Hazoor Bakhsh joined the investigation at the police station on 6.10.1992 in the presence of the complainant The learned Trial Court in para 17 of the judgment referred to statements of PW 3 Manzoor Ahmad who is Lumberdar of the area who said"......... That Khurshid Alam, Inspector had called Ghulam Nabi and Hazoor Bakhsh at the site on second and third day of the occurrence and interrogated. At that time, this PW, Haji Muhammad Nawaz complainant, Ghulam Muhammad, Peer Bakhsh and Khaliq PWs were present. Wahid Bakhsh (PW7) also admitted during cross- examination that on the very first day Khurshid Alam, Inspector had summoned Ghulam Nabi and Hazoor Bakhsh accused and joined them in the investigation and the PWs were also present. According to him, these two accused remained with .The investigation for about 3 months and they remained under detention of police."
It is apparent from the afore-referred analysis of the prosecution evidence by the learned Trial Court that the appellant-convicts had joined the investigation many weeks before the test identification parade was held and the prosecution witnesses had ample opportunities to see them.
(iv) It is manifest from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that the appellants-convicts and the complainant resided nearby and were known to each other for quite some time: For instance in para 17 of the judgment the learned Trial Court observed "PW1 Abdul Latif admitted during cross-examination that the distance between the place of occurrence and the house of Ghulam Nabi and Hazoor Bakhsh is 8/9 acres. He admitted it correct that complainant party and the accused party are his neighbours and both the parties are known to each other. He admitted that the accused persons and the complainant party were living in their basti since long and were on visting terms with each other."
(v) The learned Trial Court had itself created dent in the evidentiary value of the identification parade by making an observation at page 10. Of the judgment which is as follows:- "There is sufficient material on record to suggest that not only the accused were earlier known to the PWs but the PWs had sufficient occasions of seeing them with the police much before the convening of the identification parade."
(iv) The learned Triail Court disbelieved the recovery of weapons of offence and observed in para 19 of the judgment that:- "No empty was collected or sent for wedding (Note: this Record has incorrectly been written.
Actually it should have been 'comparison') therefore, the recoveries of these two pistols is not a conclusive or important piece of evidence with the prosecution"
10. For what has been discussed above, the sentence of Ghulam Nabi and Hazoor Bakhsh petitioners awarded to them by Mr. Fakhar Hayat, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanpur, through his judgment dated 19.12.1994 is suspended subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the I satisfaction of Deputy Registrar or this Court. It is clarified that any observation! Made herein qua the judgment is tentative and shall not affect the merits of the main appeal.