2014 P Cr (PLP)

ARSHAD MAHMOOD TABASSUM, J.

The petitioners were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide judgment dated 30-6-2005, in case F.I.R. No.51, dated 19-7-2000, offences under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Gellaywal, District Lodhran (now Tehsil Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan) and were sentenced as under:-- Muhammad Ramzan alias Bagga Under section 302-b, 34, P.P.C. Imprisonment for life with compensation of Rs.50,000, payable to the legal heirs, of the deceased as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, further undergo six months' S.I. Fayyaz Hussain Under section 302-b, 34, P.P.C. Death with compensation of Rs.1,00,000, payable to the legal heirs of the deceased as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, further undergo six months' S.I.

2. On appeal, learned Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 20-10-2010, passed in Murder Reference No.512 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2005, maintained the conviction of Fayyaz Hussain, however, death sentence awarded to him was converted into imprisonment for life with payment of compensation and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, the sentence awarded to Muhammad Ramzan was maintained.

3. It appears that the petitioners preferred Jail Petition No.68 of 2011 before the apex Court of Pakistan and vide order dated 20-9-2011, the apex Court was pleased to observe as under:-- "

4. In my opinion, although the complainant Muhammad Aslam and the eye-witnesses P.W. Allah Wasaya and Muhammad Akram have been more or less consistent on the point of guilt of the petitioners, there are some issues which are worthy of note, particularly the fact that in the F.I.R. only a lantern is mentioned through which they saw the petitioners shooting to death the deceased Ata Muhammad, whereas in his deposition before the Court P.W. Allah Wasaya has stated that he was holding a torch. Secondly, in the F.I.R. the complainant Muhammad Aslam has recorded that he along with the other P.Ws. were going towards Ata Muhammad when the incident occurred however before the court he stated that they were only a few steps away from him. It would also be seen that all the three eye-witnesses are related to the deceased and also that according to C.W.1 Chaudhry Taj Din, DSP, he had declared petitioner Ramzan alias Bagga innocent on the basis of the complainant's statement.

5. In view of the foregoing observations therefore the evidence on the record requires re-examination and consequently this petition is allowed. OPINION OF SECOND JUDGE In my opinion it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal."

4. It is in this background that the petitioners have approached this Court under section 426(2-B), Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court and upheld by this Court, maintaining that there is likelihood of the acquittal petitioners in the long run and simultaneously, there is no likelihood of their appeal being heard and decided in the near future by the apex Court, hence, the sentence awarded to them be suspended.

5. Learned law officer contested this petition with vehemence.

6. Keeping in view the leave granting order of the apex Court, as reproduced above, and also the fact that the petitioners have remained in incarceration for about 13 years and there is no likelihood of their appeal being disposed of in the near future, sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby suspended and they are ordered to be released on bail subject their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000, each with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judl) of this Court. MWA/M-10/L Petition allowed.