Mst. RASHIDAN BIBI vs STATE
The matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Mst. Rashidan Bibi seeking suspension of her sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner was convicted under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with the payment of diyat by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala. The core legal question concerns the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending the hearing of the main appeal, given the period already spent in incarceration and personal circumstances. The court held that the application should be accepted, suspending the sentence and releasing the petitioner on bail. The key principles laid down include considering the prolonged detention without likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future, the status of the petitioner as a woman, and her familial responsibilities towards her minor children as grounds for suspending a sentence under Section 426 Cr.P.C.
- Can the sentence of a convict be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending the hearing of the main appeal?
- Does the prolonged incarceration of a petitioner without the likelihood of an early hearing furnish a ground for suspension of sentence?
- Can the status of a convict being a woman with dependent children be considered as a mitigating factor for grant of bail and suspension of sentence?
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Mst. Rashidan Bibi petitioner was convicted u/S. 308 PPC and sentenced to 14 years R.I.; and also to pay Rs, 3,00,000/- as diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala vide judgment dated 12.3.2003. Through this application under Section 426 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks suspension of her above-said sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 16.11.1998 continuously and has served more than half sentence in jail. It is further contended that the petitioner has two sons and nobody is behind to look after them.
3. Learned state counsel opposes this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment. The petitioner is behind the bars since 16.11.1998 continuously and there is no likelihood of hearing of the main appeal in near future. The petitioner is a woman and she has two sons to whom she has to bring up but nobody is behind to look after her children. Hence, this application is accepted and sentence of the petitioner is suspended.
Consequently, petitioner shall be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with on surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.