1989 PLP 651 (MLD)

Muhammad Arshad and another v. The State Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1986 and 1987 S C M R 274 ref. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Petitioners. Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State. AKHTAR HASSAN, J.‑‑ The two applicants, Hayat and Akram alias Akbar, were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment for vicarious liability. Besides, they were convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment each. Both the sentences were to run concurrenty. The present application Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1987 has been moved under section 426, Cr.P.C. for suspension of their sentences pending the decision of the appeal.

2. Only one person was killed in the transaction by a shot attributed to co -convict Nazra, who is not praying for the concession. The applicants, Hayat and Akram alias Akbar, were found to have hit the complainant by their respective .12 bore guns almost on the same part of his body, namely, front of the body above the pelvis. The injuries were in the shape of multiple fire‑arm wounds superficial and simple in nature. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Arshad and another v. The State decided vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 1986 in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 1986 by a Division Bench of this Court in which case sentence of the applicant was suspended despite his having card gunshot wounds to the injured P.W. The main reason for granting concession was that he had not hit the deceased. Likewise 1987 S C M R 274 was quoted where such concession way allowed to the accused who were responsible for causing simple injuries to the PWs.

3. The fact remains that this transaction was committed by 11 persons Quite many of them have been acquitted. The fatal injury was attributed to Nazra alone who is not asking for the suspension of the sentence. The applicants have been convicted more or less on the ground of vicarious liability. Their individual performance was no more than causing superficial simple injuries on the front of the complainant. The version that both the applicants hit on the same part of the complainant's body was in itself open to two opinions. However, the simple and superficial character of the injuries ostensibly suggests that they may not have been caused from a close range, in which case there might have been deeper punctured wounds. The part of the body hit was undeniably vital and in that eventuality the damage would have been rather severe. It was possible, according to the learned counsel, that the pellets may have just gone stray from a distance and this is why they caused superficial damage. In this view of the matter, there is some reason to suppose that at least for the present the two applicants may be meted out a little different treatment. Acquittal of quite a number of accused, as already observed, was yet another circumstance which clearly proves the false implication of quite many. Accordingly, we suspend the operation of the sentence and allow the two applicants bail each on their furnishing bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujrant. M.Y.H./H-97/L Sentence suspended.