Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2011 ' SYED IFTIKH A R HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Mst. Rehana Bibi (petitioner/ appellant) has filed this application under section 426, Cr.P.C. For suspension of her sentence awarded to her vide judgment dated 27-4-2011 by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby she has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment with compensation of Rs.1,00,000 payable to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544, Cr.P.C.
And default thereof to further undergo 6-months' S.I. In case F.I.R. No.578 of 2009 dated 10-10-2009, registered under sections 302, 392 and 411, P.P.C. At Police Station Dajkot, District Faisalabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no evidence is available against the petitioner. There is only evidence of last seen, and there was only single fire on the dead body of the deceased. The petitioner had neither abducted Kashif, deceased nor, murdered him. The recovery of mobile of the deceased from the petitioner is fake one. The learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner erroneously, therefore, the instant application is liable to be accepted and sentence awarded to the petitioner is also liable to be suspended.
3. On the other hand, the learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has resisted this application and contended that mobile of the deceased was recovered from the petitioner and dead body of the deceased was also recovered on the pointation of the present petitioner; that she along with her co-accused abducted deceased, robbed him and his murder was committed; that sufficient material is available on record against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The mobile of the deceased was recovered from the petitioner and dead body of the deceased was also recovered on the pointation of the present petitioner. She along with her co-accused abducted deceased, robbed him and his murder was committed. The learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that charge against the petitioner was proved and then convicted and sentenced him as above. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. The basic presumptions of innocence in favour of the petitioner stands evaporated due to his conviction; therefore, no cogent reason exists to suspend the sentence of the petitioner at this stage.
Resultantly, the instant application is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.