2003 PLP 3342 (YLR)
SAJID ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 3342 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | SAJID ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 3342 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 3342 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 3342 (YLR) (SAJID ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Accused had not caused any injury to the deceased and nothing was recovered from him while fatal injury resulting into death of the deceased was attributed to the co‑accused‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars and there was no likelihood of coming his appeal for hearing in near future due to present Roster‑‑‑In view of role attributed to the accused, it would be determined at final hearing whether accused had shared common intention with the co accused or not‑‑‑Operation of sentence of accused was suspended in circumstances. Sh. Arshad Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Sh. Arshad Ali for the State. Petitioner seeks suspension of his sentence awarded vide judgment dated 29‑11‑2002, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge. Chichawatni, while convicting the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. has sentenced him to life imprisonment with further order to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 to the legal heirs of deceased, in default whereof to further undergo S.I. for six months.
2. It is contended that petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. but subsequently after a delay of 4/5 months, statement of Mst. Sobia daughter of the deceased was recorded in which she named the petitioner as one of the accused alongwith Muhammad, Shafiq, and only allegation against the petitioner is that he stood outside the house and Naseer Ahmed co‑accused caught hold of Muhammad Shafique and injured him. Only one injury is found in the post‑mortem report by the doctor. It is lastly argued that petitioner is behind the bars since long and there is no likelihood of hearing of his appeal in near future.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased and nothing was recovered from him while fatal injury resulting into death of the deceased was attributed to cu‑convict Muhammad Shafique. The petitioner‑appellant is behind the bars but there is no likelihood of the hearing of this appeal in the near future due to the present Roster, and in view of role attributed to the petitioner it will be determined at the final hearing whether he had shared common intention with the co convict or not. For the time being I allow this petition, suspend operation of sentence of the petitioner and he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S‑735/L Petition accepted.