Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NOOR KHAN VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 326
[Lahore]
Before Abdul Shakurul Salam, J
NOOR KHAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1987, decided on 16th November, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304‑‑Sentence, suspension of‑‑Trial Court disbelieving occurrence having taken place in the manner alleged by prosecution and rejecting prosecution evidence‑‑No recovery from accused proving his participation‑ ‑Sentence suspended in circumstances.
Muhammad Ismail Chaudhary for Petitioner. Ashraf Khan for the State.
ORDER
In respect of an occurrence having taken place at 7‑00 p.m. on 3‑7‑1985, the petitioner Imam Bakhsh son of Painda Khan was tried alongwith six others, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal who, vide his order, dated 2‑7‑1987, found the petitioner Imam Bakhsh guilty under section 304, P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs.5,000 in case of default further imprisonment for two years. Imam Bakhsh petitioner has filed this application under section 426, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court having found in paragraph 16 that the occurrence neither took place as alleged by the prosecution nor as alleged by the defence, was not justified to surmise that it was a case of free fight and that the petitioner had given the fatal injury to the deceased. It was also submitted that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner and he had been found to be innocent by the local Investigating Officer, Muhammad Anwar, S.I. P.W.13.
3. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner having been found to have caused the fatal injury, has rightly been convicted and sentenced. Therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused) the record with their assistance. In view of the findings of the learned trial Court and especially disbelieving that the occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution, thereby rejecting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and no recovery having been effected from the petitioner to prove his participation, the petitioner appears to be entitled to bail pending the hearing of his appeal. If the same fails, he will obviously suffer the sentence as given by the learned appellate court. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C. , Chakwal.
S.A./N‑79/L Sentence suspended.