1989 PLP 4067 (MLD)
AHMAD alias AHMAD YAR and 11 others‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4067 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | AHMAD alias AHMAD YAR and 11 others‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4067 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4067 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4067 (MLD) (AHMAD alias AHMAD YAR and 11 others‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.362, 323 & 148/149‑‑Sentence, suspension of‑‑No injury caused to deceased by accused‑‑Deceased held by accused before Phahora blow was given by co‑accused‑‑Case for suspension of sentence thus was made out‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Mrs. Yasmin Sehgal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan for Petitioners. Mrs. Yasmin Sehgal for the State. This is a petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. on behalf of Ahmad alias Ahmad Yar who has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 148, P.P.C. R.I. for one year under section 323/149, P.P.C. R.I. for three months under section 447, P.P.C. and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000 under section 302/149, P.P.C. with the direction that all the sentences hall run concurrently.
2. The only allegation against the petitioner was that he held Ghulam Farid deceased before he was given a Phahora blow by co‑convict Ghulam Qadir which resulted in his instantaneous death. Dealing with his case the learned trial Judge observed that `Ahmad accused is proved to have held the deceased at the time of injury on his head. So Ghulam Qadir and Ahmad accused are found guilty for the offence under section 302/149, P.P.C. and both of them are accordingly convicted.
3. The ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the suspension of sentence is that prima facie the case against the petitioner is very weak and his conviction is not liable to be sustained. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. Admittedly, the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased. The evidence against him was that he held the deceased before he was given a Phahora blow by co‑convict, Ghulam Qadir which resulted in his death. The principles laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. provide guidelines and have to be borne in mind in granting or refusing bail pending appeal. In view of the role attributed to the petitioner, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the suspension of his sentence is made out. Accordingly, I suspend the sentence of the petitioner subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Kamalia. S.A./G‑260/L Sentence suspended.