1993 P Cr (PLP)
AAMER NAVEED and others- Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AAMER NAVEED and others- Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 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: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (AAMER NAVEED and others- Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rehmat Ali Malik for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Suspension of sentence-- Mere fact of the notice having been issued to a co-accused for enhancement of sentence was no ground to refuse suspension of accused's sentence as already a period of two years had passed and their appeal could not possibly come up in near future
Admittedly none of the accused had caused any injury to the deceased
Sentence of accused was suspended in circumstances and they were released on bail.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.
The petitioners, who were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad alongwith Aamer Naveed and Muhammad Akram were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. vide judgment dated 6-8-1990 and sentenced -to undergo imprisonment for life, each, plus to pay a sum of ks.10,000 each in default whereof to undergo R.I. for two years each, have approached this Court for suspension of their sentences on the grounds that none of them had caused any injury to the deceased; that the only part assigned to each one of them was that they, held the legs of the deceased, when he was done to death; that nothing was recovered from them and that although a period of more than two years has already passed, there is no likelihood of their appeal coming up in the near future. The contentions of the learned counsel are borne out from the record. The learned State counsel has not been able to, challenge them. The only argument advanced by the learned State counsel is that a co-accused of the petitioners have been issued notice for enhancement of the sentence from imprisonment for life to death. In our view mere fact that notice has been issued to a co-accused of the petitioners for enhancement of the sentence is no ground to refuse the prayer as already a period of two years has passed and there is no possibility of their appeal coming up in the near future. The fact is also admitted that none of them had caused any injury to the deceased. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The sentence of the petitioners shall be suspended and they shall be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad. N.H.Q./A-375/L Sentence suspended