MUNEER AHMED and 3 others vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence filed by four appellants convicted under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, who were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, fifteen stripes, and a fine. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of their appeal. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the State counsel conceded to the suspension of the sentence, noting significant evidentiary weaknesses. Specifically, the complaint was filed by the victim's brother six months after the alleged incident, and the victim herself, in her statement during the inquiry, failed to identify the appellants, claiming she was waylaid by unidentified persons. Given the substantial delay in filing the complaint, the victim's inability to identify the accused, and the allegations of enmity, the Court held that a prima facie case for suspension of sentence was established. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and directed the release of the appellants on bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether a sentence can be suspended pending appeal when the victim fails to identify the accused?
- Does a significant delay in filing a private complaint constitute grounds for suspension of sentence?
- Is the concession of the State counsel regarding the suspension of sentence a relevant factor for the court?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' This is an application for suspension of sentence of the four appellants. They have challenged their conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro sentencing them to suffer R.I. For five years, fifteen stripes and fine of Rs,10,000 for an offence punishable under sections 11/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appeal has been admitted to regular hearing and after notice of this application, the arguments of the learned counsel were heard in detail.
2. ' At the very outset, it may be stated that the learned counsel for the State conceded that this is a fit case for suspension of sentence and he has no objection to allowing the appellants to remain on bail during the pendency of the appeal. Giving the reasons for his such no objection, the learned State Counsel submitted that, firstly, this was a complaint case filed by one Saith Ali, claiming to be a social worker and brother of the victim. The victim herself is not the complainant. However, the victim had stated that the incident had taken place on 3-4-1999 while the complaint in the Court was filed on 19-10-1999. Secondly, the record shows that after filing of the complaint and enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. Was held, in which Mst. Farzana, victim and the sister of the complainant, was examined as a witness. In her such statement, she stated that she was waylaid by four unidentified persons when she was going to the hospital, where she worked as "Lady Health Visitor".
3. She did not name any person and stated that she did not know them. She further alleged in her statement that she also does not know one of such culprits, who had committed rape on her while she was taken to a place after her abduction. She stated that shortly thereafter she was secured by police and she went with her brother, the complainant Saith Ali on the same day at 10-00 p.m. From the police station.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that this could be a case of mistaken identity, as the brother of the complainant lodged direct complaint after a period of six months of the incident and that there were allegations of ill-will enmity etc. ' Under all the above circumstances and the fact that four persons of the same family have been involved, the case for suspension of sentence is made out.
5. ' Consequently, this application is allowed and it is directed that the appellants may be released on bail on their furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.