Mst. SHAGUFTA Alias GUDDI And Another vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a petition seeking the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending the disposal of an appeal. The petitioner, a woman, was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased in furtherance of common intention and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's sentence could be suspended and bail granted based on her gender, her lack of active participation or injury caused to the deceased, and the presence of her suckling child in jail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was empty-handed at the time of the incident, caused no injury to the deceased, and was acquitted of the charge of injuring another witness. Furthermore, she had a one-year-old suckling child with her in jail. Consequently, the Court suspended her sentence and admitted her to bail pending the final disposal of her appeal.
- Whether the sentence of a female convict can be suspended pending appeal if she was empty-handed and caused no injury to the deceased?
- Does the presence of a minor suckling child with a female convict in jail constitute a valid ground for the suspension of her sentence pending appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners after having argued the petition at some length has desired not to press the same to the extent of petitioner No. 1 Imran. So, to his extent, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
2. Mst. Shagufta alias Guddi, the petitioner/appellant No.2 has sought for suspension of her sentence and admitting her to bail pending the disposal of her said appeal. She was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For committing the Qatl--e-Amd of Shaukat Ali, deceased alongwith co- convict Imran, in furtherance of their common intention and sentenced under section 302(b), P.P.C.
To imprisonment for life as Tazir and to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to further suffer six months' S.I.
3. It has been contended on her behalf that she according to the prosecution evidence was empty-handed at the time of incident and had caused no injury to the deceased; that she is woman; and that a milk suckling child of very little age is with her in jail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that she has caused injuries to Mst. Rasoolan Bibi. They, however, have conceded that in the charge of causing injuries to Mst. Rasoolan Bibi she was acquitted as she did not appear as witness in her trial.
5. They have also conceded that the petitioner is having with her milk suckling child of about one year age in jail:
6. Admittedly she was acquitted of the charge of causing injury to P.W. Mst. Rasoolan Bibi as she did not appear as witness in the trial against her.
7. Furthermore, she admittedly was empty-handed at the relevant time and has caused no injury to the deceased. Here I would avoid to further comment upon this aspect of the case, lest it may be prejudicial to any of the parties at the time of final hearing of her appeal.
8. However, admittedly, she is also having with her milk suckling child in jail, who is stated to be about one year of age.
9. I, therefore, find that case for suspension of her sentence has been made.
10. I, therefore, accept this petition to her extent and pending the disposal of her appeal, her sentence is suspended and she is admitted to bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.