2004 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Khan Magsi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.308(2)
Accused had been sentenced to imprisonment for life under S.308(2), P.P.C. by the Trial Court, whereas sentence of imprisonment provided thereunder was to the extent of 14 years' R.I. as Tazir, which was an error of law
Sentence of accused was suspended in circumstances and he was released on bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner through the instant petition seeks suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail pending disposal of the appeal. He vide the judgment dated 31-1-2002 recorded by Ch. Humayun Imtiaz, Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca District Lodhran has been convicted under section 308(2) P.P.C. for committing Qatl-e-Amd of his deceased father Allah Dewaya and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life as Tazir under the same and to pay Diyat as mentioned in the same (under section 308(2), P.P.C.) to the complainant and in case he does not pay the same, he is to be kept in jail in case F. I. R. No. 118 of 2001 under section 302, P. P. C. Police Station, Saddar Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran. It has been contended on his behalf that the punishment provided for the offence under section 308(2), P.P.C. is a term which may extend to fourteen years, as Tazir while it cannot be to one for imprisonment for life and so due to this legal error his conviction and sentence is liable to be interfered with and this furnishes a ground for his suspension of sentence in view of the case Allah Ditta Khan v. The State PLD 2002 SC 845.
4. There is nobody for the State to controvert this contention.
5. The learned trial Court in concluding para. of the impugned judgment has convicted him under section 308(2), P.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned above. It would be relevant to mention herein-below the provision of section 308(2), P.P.C.:-- "Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in addition to the punishment of Diyat, may punish the offender with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, as Tazir".
6. The above position shows that the punishment provided for an offence under the said section is 14 years as Tazir. As per the ratio of the case of Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 2002 SC 845, the Appellate Court can suspend the sentence and grant bail to a convict on any legal error.
7. In view of the above, without commenting any further on the above aspect, I find that the case for the suspension of his sentence has been made out. The petition, therefore, is accepted and his sentence is suspended and pending disposal of the appeal he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-2159/L Bail granted.