PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 268 (DB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 426--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34--Suspension of Sentence--USB Port--Opinion of investigating officer--Report of PFSA--Suspension petition--grant of--Petitioner was attributed the role of causing firearm injury at the belly of deceased, whereas, his co-accused was assigned the role of making two fire shots one at the belly of deceased under umbilicus and the other at his right thigh--Medical Officer has also observed three firearm injuries at the person of deceased--Investigating Officer secured the USB Port--Investigating Officer (CW-3) while appearing in the witness box confirmed the contents of USB Port and reiterated that according to his investigation the petitioner did not make any firing--Pistol 9-MM was shown to be recovered at the pointation of co-accused and according to the report of PFSA all three crime empties secured from the spot were identified to have been fired from the said pistol--The petitioner is behind the bars for a continuous period of one year--There is no prospect of early hearing of the petitioner’s appeal. [P. 269] A, B, C, D & E
Mr. Muhammad Usman Sharif Khosa, Advocate for Appellant.
Malik Mudassar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Kh. Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 9.1.2023.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 268 (DB)
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Asjad Javaid Ghural and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ.
MUNIR AHMAD--Appellant
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 530 and Crl. Misc. No. 1 of 2022, decided on 9.1.2023.
Order
Through, this petition under Section 426, Cr.P.C. petitioner Munir Ahmad has sought suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah vide judgment dated 26.04.2022 in a private complaint titled ‘Imdad Hussain vs. Imtiaz. Hussain etc.” in respect of offence under Sections 302 & 34, PPC arising out case F.I.R. No. 153/21 dated 25.03.2021, in respect of offence under Sections 302 & 34, PPC, registered at Police Station Kot Sultan, District Layyah, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:
Under Sections 302(b), PPC
Imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Saqib Ali under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgment, it is straightaway observed that the petitioner was attributed the role of causing fire-arm injury at the belly of deceased Saqib Ali, whereas, his co-accused Imtiaz Hussain was assigned the role of making two fire shots one at the belly of deceased under umbilicus and the other at his right thigh. During post-mortem examination the of the deceased Medical Officer has also observed three fire-arm injuries at the person of deceased. Record further shows that this unfortunate incident has taken place in an educational academy and during investigation, Investigating Officer secured the USB Port (P-18), contents whereof disclosed that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon. Investigating Officer
(CW-3) while appearing in, the witness box confirmed the USB Port and reiterated that according to his investigation the petitioner did not make any firing. This statement further find support from the fact that during investigation pistol 9-MM was shown to be recovered at the pointation of co-accused Imtiaz Hussain and according to the report of PFSA (Ex.PN) all three Crime emploies secured from the spot were identified to have been fired from the said pistol. In the given circumstances, what type of role played by the petitioner during the occurrence need re-appraisal of the evidence at the time of arguments in the main appeal. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 01.04.2021 and he is behind the bars for a continuous period of one year and nine months. Co-accused Imtiaz Hussain had been convicted to the capital sentence, as such there is no prospect of early hearing of the petitioner’s appeal in near future. Gathering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of his sentence.
3. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is allowed, the sentence of the petitioner supra is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail subject to this furnishing bail bonds in
the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Bench till the Final Disposal of this appeal. He is directed to appear on every date of hearing till the final disposal of the main case.
(M.A.B.) Petition allowed
0 Comments