2006 PLP 511 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 511 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 511 (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 2006 PLP 511 (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: 2006 PLP 511 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Sabir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b) & 308
Application for suspension of sentence
Applicant/accused, who had been. awarded life imprisonment under S.302(b), P.P.C. had filed application seeking suspension of his sentence
Applicant had submitted that at the time of occurrence, he being 15 years of age, he should have been convicted under S.308, P.P.C., instead of S.302(b), P.P.C. which was punishable with imprisonment of 14 years; and that he had already undergone his sentence of 17/18 years
Contentions raised by applicant regarding contradictions in ocular account and others, would be seen at the time of disposal of main appeal
Report of fail authorities, showed that applicant/accused had already served a substantial portion of his sentence and his unexpired portion of sentence of 25 years was only 6 years and appeal was not likely to be fixed in the near future
Such aspect had entitled applicant for suspension of his sentence
Accepting application, sentence of accused was suspended and he was allowed bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.
The petitioner, Muhammad Tariq, was involved in case bearing F.I.R. No.393 of 1997, dated 26-11-1997, under section 302/34 P.P.C., and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who vide his judgment dated 14-12-1998, awarded him life imprisonment, under section 302(b), P.P.C. He was further directed to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. For non-payment of the same he was to further undergo for six months as S.I.
2. Through this application, the petitioner seeks suspension of his conviction and sentence, as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the time of occurrence, was 15 years of age and he should have been convicted under section 308, P.P.C. instead of section 302(b), P.P.C. Further submits that section 308, P.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment of 14 years and the present petitioner has already undergone this sentence of 17/18 years. Relies on Abdul Razzaq v. The State (1999 PCr.R 1012 (Lahore)). Further submits that the motive has not been proved; that there is major contradiction in the ocular account and that recovery is doubtful.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed this petition.
5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant regarding contradictions in the ocular account and others shall be seen at the time of disposal of the main appeal. However according to the report of jail authorities, the petitioner/appellant has already served a substantial portion of his sentence and his unexpired portion of sentence out of 25 years is only 6 years and appeal is not likely to be fixed in near future. This aspect entitles the petitioner for suspension of his sentence. Reliance is placed upon "Khan Muhammad Mahar v. The State (2003 SCMR 22), "Muhammad Azam and others v. The State" (2003 MLD 1731) and "Muhammad Hanif and another v. The State through Chairman National Accountability, Bureau, Karachi" (2003 PCr.LJ 161).
6. In the light of what has been stated above, while accepting this petition, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. H.B.T./M-38/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence suspended.