Mst. ZAHIDA BIBI and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence filed by Mst. Zubaida Bibi, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for her involvement in the death of Mst. Abida, caused by burns from kerosene oil. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman with five children, was entitled to the suspension of her sentence pending appeal, considering her gender and the needs of her young children. The Court held that the petitioner's sentence should be suspended. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that the provisions of Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the suspension of sentence are guided by the bail provisions under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being a woman with a young child requiring maternal care, met the criteria for relief. Consequently, the Court granted the suspension of the sentence, subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds, thereby prioritizing the welfare of the children while ensuring the petitioner's availability for the appellate proceedings.
- Does the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fall under the guidance of the bail provisions in Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a female convict be granted suspension of sentence on the grounds of having young children requiring maternal care?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This is an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of Mst. Zubaida Bibi. She was tried alongwith her sister Mst. Zahida Bibi and Muhammad Saleem husband of Mst. Zahida Bibi.
2. Allegations against the present petitioner and her co-accused were that they sprinkled kerosene oil on the person of Mst. Abida, who died later on due to burns received by her.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no motive is attributed to the present petitioner and the same is attributed to Mst. Zahida Bibi, that petitioner has got five Children and the youngest one is about 2/3 years of age, that petitioner is a woman and her case is covered by 3rd proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Adds that she was also allowed bail by this Court at the time of trial due to the fact that she was having suckling baby.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that according to birth certificate the youngest baby of the petitioner was born on 13-11-1998, that after recording the evidence the learned trial Court has declared the petitioner guilty of offence and awarded her imprisonment for life and that she is not entitled for the suspension of sentence.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as, merits of the case are concerned, I would not like to dilate upon this point so that it may not prejudice the case of either of the parties, Section 426, P.P.C. Is controlled and guided by the provision of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Petitioner is a woman, She has got five children and the youngest one is three years of age, in my view, these five children and specially the youngest one need the help of the petitioner, who is their real mother to bring them up. Relying on PLD 1971 SC 617, a case of suspension of sentence is made out in favour of the present petitioner, therefore, sentence of the petitioner is suspended subject of furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judi.) of this Court.
Cited by 4 cases
- Mst. SABEELA vs THE STATE 2004 P C R L J 1692
- Mst. SABEELA Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 1692
- Mst. ZAHIDA MAI and anothers vs THE STATE 2003 P Cr. L J 931
- Mst. MANAN alias NAZIR MAI vs THE STATE 2003 P Cr. L J 242