2004 PLP 1209 (MLD)

This is an application for suspension of sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C. The appeal has already been admitted to regular hearing. The appellant has been convicted under section 324, P.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 7 years' and pay a fine of Rs.100,000, in default whereof to remain in custody for one year more.

2. The main contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are that the appellant suffered equal damage if not more in relation to the injuries suffered by Shakir Saleem injured on the prosecution side. It is argued that the complainant Kausar Taslim is Bhabhi of the appellant but was divorced by his brother who was living in Saudi Arabia and the injured Shakir Saleem is brother of the complainant. The learned counsel urges that while the injured suffered a single stab wound, skin deep, which was described as Ghair‑e‑Jaffa, the appellant also sustained equally serious injuries on his head which‑: are described by the doctor as scalp deep on left parietal region of skull/bone is exposed.

3. The counsel went on‑to argue that the appellant had examined himself on oath and also examined Syed Izhar Ali and Muhammad Yousuf as his defence witnesses but the trial Court has totally failed to discuss the entire defence plea and the evidence brought on record.

4. The learned counsel lastly contented that the appellant had also reported the incident at Police Station, Model Colony, Karachi and submitted that if the trial Court had examined the entire evidence on record it would have reached a different conclusion.

5. None has put in appearance on behalf of the State though called at different intervals during the hearing of this application.

6. I have gone through true copies of the depositions of the appellant and his two witnesses placed before the Court by his learned counsel and have also perused the two medical certificates issued on 21‑5‑1998 in respect of the appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment, wherein the trial Court while discussing the defence has only observed that "defence has failed to shake the version of prosecution". There is no further examination of discussion undertaken by the trial Court on the case of defence. Such is, indeed, not to proper appraisal of defence evidence. Undoubtedly, the accused has made his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He has also made his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and has also examined two more defence witnesses. There is, besides, evidence of sustaining similar injuries by the appellant and his report lodged at Police Station. Such appraisal of evidence is certainly not in consonance with settled principle of assessment of evidence.

7. The arguments in support of the application are not without force.

8. Resultantly, the application is allowed the sentence of the appellant is suspended and he is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees One hundred thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. H.B.T./T‑6/K Sentence suspended.