1. ' This is an application for suspension of sentence filed by Esso, Baqar and Bago.Alias Ali Nawaz. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants who were convicted in Crime No.2 of 1991 Police Station Khairodero under section 302, 34, P.P.C. It is urged that the conviction is based on misappreciation of evidence and cannot be sustained on merits. It is further urged that the applicants Nos.1 and 2 at the time of alleged incident were armed with hatchets but no injury are attributable to them even as per medical report. In this respect the medical evidence is not in consonance with the ocular evidence. It is further urged that even the alleged hatchets were not stained with blood nor the same were referred to chemical examination to connect the applicants with the alleged crime. He has however, fairly at the moment dropped the prayer for suspension of sentence in relation to applicant No.3 Bago alias Ali Nawaz.
2. ' Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.-G. Has been relied upon the cases of Muhammad Nawaz v.
3. Muhammad Nawaz (1997 SCM R 1521) and lshaque Khan v. The State (2000 SCM R 1336) and contended that the applicants are involved in murder case ordinarily and are not entitled for the concession of bail at this stage after conviction has been awarded on the conclusion of full dress tial.
4. ' I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Apparently on assessing the evidence that has prevailed upon the trial Court the witnesses of the incident appears to be not the eye- witnesses and apparently there is specific allegation against the applicant No.3 Bago who challenged the complainant party and caused straight fire at Younis who succumbed to the injury.
5. The evidence of the complainant and the witnesses Wali Muhammad, Hussain and Haji Abdullah apparently requires the evaluation as there appears to be some discrepancy as to the presence of the present applicants. None of the witnesses apparently ha.e made any allegation against the applicants Nos.1 and 2 for causing hatchet injury or even use of the hatchet in the commission of the crime. Such facts also find support from the medical evidence which does not record the use of hatchet or report any hatchet injury on the body of deceased.
6. ' In the case of Muhammad Nawaz the bail granted by the High Court after the conviction by the trial Court was considered to be not justified apparently for the reason that the accused persons were alleged and apparently proved to have attacked duly armed with deadly weapon. Here in the instant case the applicants Nos.1 and 2 no doubt are alleged to be armed with hatchet but use of the hatchet is not attributed to them. In the case of Ishaque Khan the High Court declined the bail and the Honourable Supreme Court did not consider the same request which was only made to seek direction for early hearing of the case by the High Court which request was declined at the level of the Honourable Supreme Court with observation that such request could have been effectively made before the High Court.
7. ' In Lateef Bibi v. Abdul Ghafoor (1994 SCM R 1727) the Honourable Supreme Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment for life in a situation where no injury was attributed to the accused and such exercise of the discretion was upheld in said case.
8. In the instant case also from the record it appears that there is no allegation of use of hatchet by the applicants Nos.1 and 2 nor any injury appears to have been caused by use of hatchet which is corroborated by medical evidence. The applicants all along were enjoying the benefit of bail before the trial Court during they were convicted on 20-12-1999.
9. ' Above were the consideration and reason which prevailed upon me while suspending the conviction and extending the bail to the applicants Nos.1 and 2 subject to the furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Three Lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount vide short order dated 12- 10-2000.