2007 PLP 411 (YLR)
NASIR MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 411 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | NASIR MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 411 (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 2007 PLP 411 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 411 (YLR) (NASIR MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon for Petitioner.
- ----S. 426---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)---Petition for suspension of sentence---Petitioner/accused had contended that pieces of evidence relied upon by the Trial Court, had not been proved on record---Assistant Advocate-General had stated that contention raised by accused needed reappraisal of evidence which exercise could not be done by the High Court under S.426, Cr.P.C.---Validity-Contention of Assistant Advocate-General was not well-founded because Court in its judgment had recorded the findings that extra judicial confession made by accused was disbelieved due to want of evidence---Trial Court had also found that motive behind the occurrence was unknown, and that evidence of deceased having been last seen alive in the company of accused, was weak type of circumstantial evidence---Petitioner had -made out a case of suspension of sentence---Conviction/sentence recorded by the Trial Court, was suspended, in circumstances.
- 4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the learned State counsel contends that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner needs reappraisal of evidence which exercise cannot be done by the Court under section 426, Cr.P.C.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)
Petition for suspension of sentence
Petitioner/accused had contended that pieces of evidence relied upon by the Trial Court, had not been proved on record
Assistant Advocate-General had stated that contention raised by accused needed reappraisal of evidence which exercise could not be done by the High Court under S.426, Cr.P.C.
Validity-Contention of Assistant Advocate-General was not well-founded because Court in its judgment had recorded the findings that extra judicial confession made by accused was disbelieved due to want of evidence
Trial Court had also found that motive behind the occurrence was unknown, and that evidence of deceased having been last seen alive in the company of accused, was weak type of circumstantial evidence
Petitioner had -made out a case of suspension of sentence
Conviction/sentence recorded by the Trial Court, was suspended, in circumstances. Naqibullah and another v. The State PLD 1978 SC 21 ref. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi A.A.-G. for the State along with Sabir Khan State Counsel.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.
Through this Criminal Miscellaneous No.27-M of 2006 Nasir Mehmood son of Muhammad Riasat petitioner seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 17-1-2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujjar Khan the appellant was convicted under section 302-B, P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. It was ordered that he shall pay Rs.3,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation it was ordered that he will undergo six months' imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him.
3. In para.28 of the judgment impugned, the Court has also relied upon the following pieces of evidence:- (i) Last seen evidence. (ii) Extra-Judicial confession of the accused. (iii) Recoveries of empty from the place of occurrence and pistol from the accused. (iv) Medical evidence. (v) Report of F.S.L. and CE. Learned counsel contends that the above said evidence has not been proved on record.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the learned State counsel contends that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner needs reappraisal of evidence which exercise cannot be done by the Court under section 426, Cr.P.C.
5. Contention of the learned A.A.-G. is not well founded because the Court in its judgment at page 14 paragraph 31 itself recorded the finding:- "Extra-Judicial confession made by the accused is disbelieved due to want of evidence."
6. Regarding motive, at page 13 in paragraph 14, the Court held "The motive behind the occurrence is unknown". Last seen evidence
Evidence of deceased having been last seen alive in company of accused
A weak type of circumstantial evidence of basing conviction. See the case of Naqibullah and another v. The State (PLD 1978 SC 21). The medical evidence, the report of the F.S.L. and the Chemical Examiner's report are the corroborative pieces of evidence.
7. For what has been discussed, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has successfully made out a case of suspension of sentence. This being so, the application is allowed and the conviction/sentence recorded by the trial Court is suspended.
8. The petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge. H.B.T./N-63/L Sentence suspended.