P L D 1996 Lahore 269 (PLP)

SYEij ZAHID HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.‑‑‑Petitioner‑convict Nazoo has moved this petition for suspension of sentence. He was convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Rajpur under section 302/34, P.P.C. aid was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000 and in default to further undergo 3 years' R.I.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that two years and ten months have passed but the appeal of the petitioner has not been disposed of by the Court. It was further ' contended that the delay in disposal of the appeal cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied upon 1995 SCMR 1819.

3. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the suspension of the execution of sentence on the ground that the present occurrence took place during the pendency of an earlier case registered under section 307, P.P.C. for the occurrence which took place one year prior to the present incident. In that case complainant's son Safdar Hussain had given injuries to Jeewan convict because Safdar Hussain suspected illicit relations between Jeewan and his wife. He has referred to para. 3 of the judgment. On the basis of this evidence learned counsel argaed that there was every possibility of repetition of the crime. The suspension of sentence may result into some untowards incident between the parties. He has relied upon 1992 SCMR 1903.

4. We have heard learned counsel from the parties and have gone through the record.

5. We have also carefully considered the authorities referred to above by the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as 1992 SCMR 1903 upheld the order of the High Court, refusing the suspension of sentence on the ground that the petitioner of that case alongwith 4 others was convicted for murdering Akbar Ali and Qasim and after the commission of murder their father Muhammad Din was also murdered during pendency of that case.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as 1995 SCMR 1819, observed on page 435 that "in the above‑noted cases this Court decline to interfere with the order passed by the High Court declining the grant of bail in spite of expiry of statutory period for disposal of the appeal after having noticed that there was counter‑murder case between the parties, therefore, refusal of the High Court to enlarge the accused on bail was based on sound ground, as it was apprehended that if the appellant was enlarged on bail, he might repeat the offence".

7. After going through the above‑referred judgments, we are of the considered view that ordinarily a convict shall be released on bail if this appeal is not decided within the statutory period of 2 years irrespective of the merits of the case but the Court can decline suspension of execution of sentence in a case in which there is likelihood of repetition of the crime. We are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the suspension of execution of sentence because here is likelihood of repetition of the crime.

8. Before parting with this order, we direct the office to complete the paper book and other formalities within 5 months and the appeal of the petitioner be fixed in the second week of May, 1996, if not earlier. 9. 1 For what has been stated above; the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./N‑361/L Petition dismissed.