2004 PLP 1298 (YLR)
IBRAHIM and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1298 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | IBRAHIM and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1298 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1298 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1298 (YLR) (IBRAHIM and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheheryar Sheikh for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)/34‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑One of the male accused had been shown to have caused murder of the deceased and in complaint case specific injury to deceased and also to injured prosecution witness was attributed to him‑‑‑Female accused who was mother of male accused was a lady and was not named in the F.I.R.‑‑‑Sentence of female accused was suspended, but male accused having failed to make out case for suspension of his sentence, his petition for suspension of sentence, was dismissed. Miss Uzma Zakee for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sheheryar Sheikh for Petitioners. Miss Uzma Zakee for the State. This is an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of Hafeezan Bibi and Waheed convict petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as, Hafeezan Bibi is concerned, she was not named in the F.I.R., that F.I.R. was lodged on 16‑10‑1999, while the complaint was filed 3‑1/2 months after lodging the F.I.R., that in F.I.R. no role was attributed to Waheed but in the complaint case specific injury had been attributed to him by the complainant, that facts given in the F.I.R. are totally different to that of complaint case and that case for suspension of sentence is made out in favour of both the convict‑petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that judgment has been announced recently, that offence alleged against the petitioners falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that both the petitioners are named in the complaint case and no case for suspension of sentence is made out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the F.I.R. as far as Waheed is concerned, he has been shown as an accused who caused the murder of the deceased and in the complaint case specific injury to the deceased and also to the injured P. W. was attributed to him. So far as, Hafeezan Bibi is concerned, she is mother of Waheed, she is a lady, she was not named in the F.I.R., section 426, Cr.P.C. is guided by the first proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, as far as, Mst. Hafeezan Bibi is concerned, this petition .is accepted. Her sentence is suspended subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) with one surety in the like‑amount to the satisfaction of D.R.(Judl.) of this Court. So far as, Waheed is concerned, no case for suspension of sentence is made out; A therefore, this petition to his extent is dismissed. H.B.T./I‑7/L Order accordingly.