2006 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 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: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Awais Mushtaq for Petitioner No.2.
- 4. Khawaja Awais Mushtaq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgment whereby the conviction and sentence had been recorded against the petitioner. The learned trial Court had itself come to the conclusion that there was conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. A perusal of judgment also reveals that motive part of the story had not been believed. Likewise the alleged recovery from the petitioner had also been disbelieved. There is no substance in the argument of the learned State Counsel that adverting to these points at this stage would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitioner has only pointed out the deficiencies and the shortcomings in the judgment itself.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b) & 34
Petition for
Conflict was found between ocular account and medical evidence
Motive part of story and alleged recovery from accused had not been believed
Evidence on basis of which accused had been convicted and sentenced, needed reappraisal during course of hearing of main appeal
Petition was allowed and sentence awarded to accused was suspended--Accused was released on bail.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J.
Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Boota, the petitioner/appellant seeks suspension of sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska; District Sialkot vide his judgment, dated 15-9-2004.
2. The allegation against the petitioner was that while armed with a rifle he had caused injury to Abdul Khaliq at his right flank.
3. The petitioner was tried along with his co-accused under sections 148 and 302/149, P.P.C. However, seven of the co-accused had been acquitted whereas the petitioner was convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also sentenced to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 or in default in the payment whereof to further undergo six months' imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him.
4. Khawaja Awais Mushtaq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgment whereby the conviction and sentence had been recorded against the petitioner. The learned trial Court had itself come to the conclusion that there was conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. A perusal of judgment also reveals that motive part of the story had not been believed. Likewise the alleged recovery from the petitioner had also been disbelieved. There is no substance in the argument of the learned State Counsel that adverting to these points at this stage would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitioner has only pointed out the deficiencies and the shortcomings in the judgment itself.
5. Keeping in view the totality of the facts I am of the view that the evidence on the basis of which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced needs reappraisal during the course of hearing of the main appeal. The case Muhammad Afzal and another v. The State 1994 SCMR 453 advances the plea of the petitioner for suspension of sentence.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended. He shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing 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 Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. He is directed to appear in this Court on each and every date of hearing till the final disposal of the main appeal. H.B.T./M-381/L Petition allowed.