| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 1643 2013 SLD 1643 2013 SCMR 1403 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.335-L of 2013, decision dated: 4-06-2013.(On appeal from the judgment dated 11-3-2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous No.100 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.332 of 2011.)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ
Syed Muhammad Jamil Anwar Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Abdul Hameed Rana, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos.1 - 4. Mazher Sher Awan, Additional P.G. for the State.
Criminal Petition No.335-L of 2013, decision dated: 4-06-2013.(On appeal from the judgment dated 11-3-2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous No.100 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.332 of 2011.)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ
Syed Muhammad Jamil Anwar Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Abdul Hameed Rana, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos.1 - 4. Mazher Sher Awan, Additional P.G. for the State.
MANZOOR AHMED-
VS
FAZAL AHMED and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 426---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-e-amd---Suspension of sentence---Assessment of evidence for purposes of suspending sentence under S.426, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Accused were convicted under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life---High Court suspended sentence of accused under S. 426, Cr.P.C. on the grounds that injuries attributed to them fell within the mischief of S. 337-F(iii), P.P.C., which was punishable with three years' imprisonment; that injuries attributed to them were on non-vital parts of the body; that they did not repeat hatchet blows; that injuries attributed to them were not corroborated by medical evidence, and that they had already undergone more than 4-1/2 years of the substantive sentence---Validity---High Court while suspending sentence of accused discussed prosecution evidence in a manner which was the preserve of the Appellate Court---High Court went into deeper appreciation of evidence, which exercise could not have been undertaken in a petition under S. 426, Cr.P.C.---Observations made by High Court in its were likely to prejudice the case of the prosecution in appeal---Accused were attributed specific role of causing injuries to the deceased in the F.I.R. and in the evidence led during trial---Question as to whether there was sufficient corroboration of the ocular account entailed deeper appreciation of evidence which ought to have been left to the Appellate Court during hearing of appeal---Sentences of accused could not have been suspended in the present case---Impugned order of High Court was set aside and direction was given to take accused into custody and send them to judicial lockup. Muhammad Saleem v. State PLD 2006 SC 483 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 426---Suspension of sentence---Assessment of evidence for purposes of suspending sentence under S. 426, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Deeper appreciation of evidence could not be undertaken in a petition under S. 426, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Saleem v. State PLD 2006 SC 483 rel. ORDER TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Seeks leave to appeal against the order dated…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492