1995 P Cr (PLP)

S. 426(1-A)(c)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302

Suspension of sentence

Accused's appeal against his conviction and sentence was pending undisposed for the last about 2-1/2 years for no fault on his part

Suspension of sentence after expiry of two years, no doubt, could not be urged as of right, but benefit given by express provisions of law could not justifiably be denied ordinarily and could only be withheld if tentative assessment of evidence would lead to no other possible view of the matter except the guilt of accused

No compelling reason to withheld the statutory concession available to accused was found in the case

Sentence of accused was consequently suspended and he was released on bail accordingly. Sardar Muhammad-Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for the Complainant. This is an application under section 426(1-A)(C), Cr.P.C. for the suspension of sentence moved on behalf of Murad son of Shamad who for the charge of committing the murder of Falak Sher was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two years with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The applicant was also directed to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide judgment, dated 25-9-1991.

2. The applicant is attributed inflicting of Sota blow to the deceased on his head proving fatal to his life. The learned counsel seeking suspension of sentence on statutory ground contended that the occurrence having taken place suddenly, the liability can hardly in the given facts be fixed under section 304, P.P.C. and no offence having been constituted under section 302, P.P.C. the sentence under section 302, P.P.C. shall not be sustainable.

3. Without going into the question of the nature of offence committed and the extent of liability of the applicant, I notice that the appeal filed by the a applicant against his conviction and sentence is pending undisposed for the last about 2-1/2 years for no fault on his part. Undoubtedly, suspension of sentence after expiry of two years is not to be urged as of right but benefit given by express provisions of law cannot justifiably be denied ordinarily and can, only be withheld in the cases in which tentative assessment of the evidence does lead to no other possible view of the matter except the guilt of accused.

4. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not see any compelling reason to withhold the statutory concession available to the petitioner. The sentence of the petitioner is accordingly suspended and he is directed to be g released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal. N.H.Q./M-1766/L Sentence suspended.