Mst. REHANA BIBI vs THE STATE and anothers
Mst. Rehana Bibi filed an application under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of her sentence of life imprisonment awarded under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 along with compensation under section 544 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in case F.I.R. No.578 of 2009. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the suspension of her sentence pending appeal, given the evidence of last seen, recovery of the deceased's mobile phone from her possession, and recovery of the dead body on her pointation. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court rightly evaluated the evidence connecting the petitioner to the abduction, robbery, and murder, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail/suspension stage. Furthermore, the initial presumption of innocence evaporated upon conviction. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, holding that no cogent reason existed to suspend the sentence.
- Whether the presumption of innocence continues after a conviction has been recorded by a trial court?
- Can a convict seek suspension of sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a deeper appreciation of evidence at the appellate stage?
- Does the recovery of a deceased person's belongings and the pointing out of a dead body constitute sufficient ground to deny the suspension of a sentence for murder?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2011 ' SYED IFTIKH A R HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Mst. Rehana Bibi (petitioner/ appellant) has filed this application under section 426, Cr.P.C. For suspension of her sentence awarded to her vide judgment dated 27-4-2011 by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby she has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment with compensation of Rs.1,00,000 payable to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544, Cr.P.C.
And default thereof to further undergo 6-months' S.I. In case F.I.R. No.578 of 2009 dated 10-10-2009, registered under sections 302, 392 and 411, P.P.C. At Police Station Dajkot, District Faisalabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no evidence is available against the petitioner. There is only evidence of last seen, and there was only single fire on the dead body of the deceased. The petitioner had neither abducted Kashif, deceased nor, murdered him. The recovery of mobile of the deceased from the petitioner is fake one. The learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner erroneously, therefore, the instant application is liable to be accepted and sentence awarded to the petitioner is also liable to be suspended.
3. On the other hand, the learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has resisted this application and contended that mobile of the deceased was recovered from the petitioner and dead body of the deceased was also recovered on the pointation of the present petitioner; that she along with her co-accused abducted deceased, robbed him and his murder was committed; that sufficient material is available on record against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The mobile of the deceased was recovered from the petitioner and dead body of the deceased was also recovered on the pointation of the present petitioner. She along with her co-accused abducted deceased, robbed him and his murder was committed. The learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that charge against the petitioner was proved and then convicted and sentenced him as above. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. The basic presumptions of innocence in favour of the petitioner stands evaporated due to his conviction; therefore, no cogent reason exists to suspend the sentence of the petitioner at this stage.
Resultantly, the instant application is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.