1997 PLP 1567 (MLD)

R.A. Awan for Appellants Ch. Anwar Dholan for the State, The petitioners have been convicted under section 302(b)/34, P, P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in the private complaint titled Sabir v. Khalid Hussain; they seek suspension of their sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C. and be released on bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had not been held liable for having caused the murder of the deceased, only ineffective firing at the P.Ws. had been alleged and was not supported by any confirmatory circumstance on the record; the fatal injury caused to the deceased was only attributed to Khalid appellant, co‑accused/convict who was got discharged by the police being found innocent at the initial stages but was called by the learned Trial Court in the complaint case.

3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on case Muhammad Sadiq v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 812) Lahore and case Sattu Khan and others v. The State (1988 SCMR 241). According to the F.I.R. Khalid accused was armed with .12‑bore gun, Tariq Malak petitioner was armed with .7‑MM rifle while Muhammad Malak petitioner raised Lalkara. During the investigation Khalid and Ghulam Muhammad accused were found innocent and were got discharged while the petitioners were found guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C.

4. The complainant being dissatisfied with the investigation had filed the private complaint Exh.PC; wherein accused persons were summoned and faced trial.

5. The learned counsel's contention that the medical evidence is not in consistency of ocular evidence as according to medical report the dimension of injury clearly shows that it was not the result of .12 bore weapon as alleged in the F.I.R. rather is a blunt injury; while the learned Judge categorically held that the deceased was murdered by a fire‑arm "12‑bore beyond any doubt; hence the plea needs deeper appreciation of evidence and at this stage cannot be gone into. Further, it has been held that admittedly the eye‑witnesses had no motive and incentive to involve the petitioners in a false case of murder; further the contention that neither weapons were recovered nor empties were recovered from the spot as alleged indiscriminate firing is of no help at this stage as investigation of the police was not believed in and the complainant was forced to file a private complaint.

6. The supra cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and are quite distinguishable. The petitioners were convicted on 24‑3‑1996 and there seems no urgency to suspend the sentence and release them on bail; the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. N.H.Q./K‑13/L Petition dismissed.