Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Rustam Ali Malik and Sardar Muhammad AslamSardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa,Miss Kubra Gillani
2005 M L D 1812
2005 M L D 1812
[Lahore]
Before Rustam Ali Malik and Sardar Muhammad Aslam, JJ
MUHAMMAD ANWAR---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
C.M. No.2 of 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.435 of 2004, decided on 11th July, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 426---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324---Suspension of sentence pending appeal---Accused was attributed firing in the air and injured had not attributed the injury to accused---Case of accused was fit for consideration as it would be too harsh to keep accused in death cell till hearing of appeal, which was likely to take a long time---Case for suspension of sentence having been made out, sentence of accused was suspended and he was enlarged on bail.
Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
Miss Kubra Gillani for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th July, 2005.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 18-3-2004 whereby the petitioner Shoaib alias Labha son of Muhammad Sarwar was convicted and sentenced to death.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner by the P. Ws. and the learned trial Court drew wrong inference and passed sentence of death.
3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that death sentence cannot be suspended.
4. We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsel, called for the original record and examined the same.
5. P.W.1 and P AV.2 have furnished the eye-witnesses account. P.W.1 stated that Shafqat and Soaib (present petitioner) accused were firing in the air and their fire shots injured a young boy namely Basit. P.W.2 also stated that present petitioner while firing in the air ran away from the spot and from the firing a boy namely Basit was injured. Basit Younis was examined as P.W.17. He did not attribute his injury to any one.
6. From the tentative examination of the eye-witness account and the statement of P.W.17 Basit Younis, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is attributed firing in the air and that the injured Basit has not attributed his injury to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is fit for re-consideration. It would be too harsh to keep the petitioner in the death cell till the hearing of the appeal; which is likely to take a long time. We are of the view that case is made out for suspension of sentence of the petitioner. Accordingly, we suspend the sentence of the petitioner and enlarge him on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
H.B.T./M-1242/L Sentence suspended.