Masood-ul-Hassan petitioner/appellant was convicted vide judgment/order dated the 23rd of January, 1995, by the learned Sessions Judge of Chakwal and sentenced under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. For having caused an injury to Badar Mansoor (P.W.) and awarded three years' R.I. And under section 302(c). P.P.C. Although he did not cause any injury to the deceased and awarded 15 years'
R.1. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Masood-ul-Hassan has appealed against his conviction and sentence and the appeal has already been admitted to a regulate hearing by this Court. He now seeks suspension of sentence and release on bail.
3. On the prosecution's own showing Masood-ul-Hassan appellant/ petitioner did not fire at or cause any injury whatsoever to the deceased. The specific role attributed to the petitioner is to the effect that he fired at Badar Mansoor (P.W.) who suffered an injury on the thigh which--- prima facie, seems to be the result of a pellet while according to the prosecution Masood-ul-Hassan appellant/petitioner was allegedly armed with a pistol. Be that as it may, this is a question which will be determined at the time of appeal and, therefore, I am restraining from making any observation regarding this aspect of the case.
4. The motive for this occurrence was stated to be digging of earth from the shrine of Baba Mastana in Mauza Haphi, Tehsil and District Chakwal. However, the learned trial Court found in paragraph 24 of the judgment that the prosecution had failed to establish the motive beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Out of the three eye-witnesses who provided the ocular account, the learned trial Court in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment disbelieved the very presence of two eye-witnesses. Thus, the conviction seems to have been recorded upon the sole testimony of Badar Mansoor (P.W.).
Whether this conviction will be maintained is also a question to be determined when the appeal is heard.
6. It is also significant that the entire controversy in this case is actually cry limited because the killing is admitted by co-accused Abid Hussain who pleaded exercise of the right of private defence which will have to be seen in juxtaposition with the case of the prosecution at the time of hearing of the appeal.
7. For the limited purposes of this petition for suspension of sentence, the admitted position is that the only role ascribed to the petitioner is that he fired at Badar Mansoor (P.W.) and caused an injury on his thigh which has been declared to be simple in nature.
8. Resultantly, the sentence of Masood-ul-Hassan petitioner is suspended. He is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.