2012 PLP 2844 (YLR)

SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.--Adjourned.

2. This is an application for suspension of sentence moved under sec tion 426, Cr.P.C. read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant Mrs. Neelofar , wife of co-accused Javed Alam, who has been convicted and sentenced under section 302/34, P.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life along with co-accused Shamsul Haq and Jafer Alam, on 17-5-2012. Brief facts of the case are that accused Shamsul Haq married with deceased Rabia and out of the wedlock two children were born. The spouses were living happily. On 26-2-2006 when deceased Rabia was working in the kitchen, all of a sudden, she got engulfed with fire and upon her cries, appellant No.1, Shamsul Haq, came running and tried his best to cover the deceased with blanket. Thereafter, Mrs. Rabia was taken to Civil Hospital and was admitted to Burns Ward with 96% burn case. Medico-legal Officer of the Hospital informed the police and on 26-2-2006 statements of the parents of the deceased were recorded in the ICU Ward of the Civil Hospital. On 27-2-2006, Ms. Rabia expired in the Burns Ward, Civil Hospital, Karachi. After about three months of the incident, father of the deceased, namely, Muhammad Siraj appeared at PS Baghdadi and lodged an F.I.R. against the accused persons, including the present accused/appellant Mst. Nelofar. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant Nelofar that the accused Nelofar is a married woman and out of the wedlock three children have been born and one of them is aged about two years and is a suckling baby. He submits that the facilities inside the prison, are not adequate for bringing-up of suckling child and the welfare of the child demands that his mother/appellant be kept in a better environment where she should take care of herself and also look after her child according to modern standards besides providing suitable medical facilities to him. It is further contended that there is a delay of three months in lodging of the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses were recorded after delay of about three and a half months. The incident is unseen and the allegations are general and sweeping in nature. He, therefore, prays that the sentence be suspended and she may be released on bail pending her appeal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following cases:-- (1) 1971 SCMR 657, (2) .1978 SCMR 149, (3) 2012 SCMR 997, (4) 1996 SCMR 973, (5) 1998 MLD 1350, (6) 1994 PCr.LJ 514 and (7)2004 MLD 1423. The learned counsel also relied on the unreported judgments in the following cases:-- (1) Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2007 -- Muhammad Yousuf v. State (2) Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2004 --Shakeel Ahmed v. State and (3) Criminal Appeal No.123 of. 2012 Mst. Rabin v. The State. On the other hand, Mr. S. Nadeem Abbas, Advocate for the, complainant, vehemently opposed the suspension of the sentence and has argued that the deceased Mst Rabia implicated her along with the co-accused in the commission of the offence and, therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail. Learned A.P.-G. also opposed the suspension of sentence and release of the applicant/applicant on bail. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties with care and perused the record with their assistance and have gone through the case-law cited before me. At the very outset, I am quite confident that this is a recent case and its decision was taken about three months back and sufficient evidence has been recorded by the trial Court. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi, learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant referred to the evidence in the case minutely and at length but to discus and analyze the evidence at this stage will definitely prejudice the interest of the respective parties in this case. The paper-book is ready and the case is ready to be argued out then why this unnecessary delay should be caused. I am quite conscious of the fact that the appellant/applicant has to take care of her three minor children including a suckling baby and this ordeal supports my above opinion that since everything is ready so much so that the paper-book is in hand, hence the matter may be fixed for regular hearing and finally argued out. I have perused the case-law cited before me by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant but the same is quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, I find no merits in the listed Application No.3648 of 2012 which is dismissed. However, the office is directed to fix the appeal in. court for regular hearing in the third week of September, 2012 at Serial Number No.1 as per Roster. MWA/S-58/K Application dismissed.