2012 PLP 881 (YLR)

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2011 SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.

Through the instant Criminal Miscellaneous, the petitioners/Allah Ditta and Nasir have sought their suspension of sentences, awarded by the learned Additional Session's Judge, Chiniot, vide judgment dated 13-5-2010, in a case bearing F.I.R. No.35 of 2007, dated 14-1-2007, registered in Police Station City Chiniot, under sections 302/392/404/411, P.P.C. The detail of the sentences is as under: Allah Ditta/Petitioner No.1. Under sections 302(2), P.P.C. Sentenced to the imprisonment for life. He was further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo six months' S.I. Under section 392, P.P.C. Sentenced to five years with fine of Rs.50,000 and in default thereof to further undergo S.I for six months. Under section 404, P.P.C. Sentenced to two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for three months. Under section 411, P.P.C., as "Tazir" Sentenced to two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I. for three months. Nasir/petitioner No.2 Under sections 302(2), P.P.C. Sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo six months. S.I. Under section 392 Five years with fine of Rs.50,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for six months. Under section 404 P.P.C. Sentence to two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment, to further undergo S.I. for three months. Under section 411, P.P.C. Two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for three months.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. He further submitted that in the judgment the learned trial court has held that the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased Amir Ali and despite that they have been excessively punished. He added that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against them and re-appraisal of the evidence would be required to maintain the conviction of the petitioners. He claimed that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than four and a half years and are entitled to the suspension of their sentences.

3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant petition on the ground that the petitioners actively participated in the occurrence and shared their common intention with the co-accused to commit the murder of Amir Ali deceased. He submitted that deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be taken into at this stage.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Vide order dated 20-9-2011, a report was requisitioned from Superintendent, Central Jail, Faisalabad and according to his report dated 22-10-2011, both the petitioners were awarded aforementioned sentences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, out of which they have only served out five (5) years, eight (8) months and twelve (l2) days including remissions and the remaining unserved period of their sentences is 19 years, 3 months and 1 days. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are relatable to the merits of the case and at this stage/this Court cannot enter into a reappraisal of the evidence, which should be considered at the time of hearing of the accompanying appeal. In the judgment, learned trial Court has observed that the petitioners shared the common intention of the co-accused/Azam, who committed the murder of deceased Amir Ali, as such, they have also been sentenced and punished for committing the offences falling under sections 392/ 404/411, P.P.C. and awarded afore-mentioned sentences. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to justify any legal error in the impugned judgment to suspend the sentences of the petitioners. Hence, no ground is made out to suspend the sentences of the petitioners. Dismissed. M.W.A./A-26/L Petition dismissed.