2005 PLP 1812 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1812 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1812 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1812 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1812 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324
Suspension of sentence pending appeal
Accused was attributed firing in the air and injured had not attributed the injury to accused
Case of accused was fit for consideration as it would be too harsh to keep accused in death cell till hearing of appeal, which was likely to take a long time
Case for suspension of sentence having been made out, sentence of accused was suspended and he was enlarged on bail.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 18-3-2004 whereby the petitioner Shoaib alias Labha son of Muhammad Sarwar was convicted and sentenced to death.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner by the P. Ws. and the learned trial Court drew wrong inference and passed sentence of death.
3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that death sentence cannot be suspended.
4. We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsel, called for the original record and examined the same.
5. P.W.1 and P AV.2 have furnished the eye-witnesses account. P.W.1 stated that Shafqat and Soaib (present petitioner) accused were firing in the air and their fire shots injured a young boy namely Basit. P.W.2 also stated that present petitioner while firing in the air ran away from the spot and from the firing a boy namely Basit was injured. Basit Younis was examined as P.W.17. He did not attribute his injury to any one.
6. From the tentative examination of the eye-witness account and the statement of P.W.17 Basit Younis, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is attributed firing in the air and that the injured Basit has not attributed his injury to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is fit for re-consideration. It would be too harsh to keep the petitioner in the death cell till the hearing of the appeal; which is likely to take a long time. We are of the view that case is made out for suspension of sentence of the petitioner. Accordingly, we suspend the sentence of the petitioner and enlarge him on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. H.B.T./M-1242/L Sentence suspended.