1

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Cr. Misc. No.__________B/2009

IN
Cr. Appeal No._ 167 _J/2008

In re:

SAJIDA PARVEEN etc.….. Versus …..THE STATE

__________

Mst. Sajida Parveen widow of Arshad Mahmood,

Caste Jatt, resident of Digri Chak No.121,
Tehsil Sangla Hill, District Nankana.
(Presently confined in Central Jail, Lahore.)

……….Petitioner

Versus

1. The State.

2. Sultan Ahmed son of Muhammad Ali,

Caste Jatt Sidhu, resident of Digri Chak No.121,
Tehsil Sangla, District Nankana;
Presently Mohalla Abbas Park, Street No.3,
District Faisalabad.

3. Rabia Bibi daughter of Arshad Mahmood,

Caste Jatt, resident of Digri Chak No.121,
Tehsil Sangla Hill, District Nankana.
……..Respondents

__________

PETITION Under Section 426 Cr. P. C. for suspension of

sentence and release of the petitioner-appellant on
bail.
__________

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

That addresses of the parties have completely and correctly

given in the heading of the petition for the purpose of service of notices
1

etc. upon them. The respondent No.2 is complainant of State while

respondent No.3 is complainant of the Private complaint.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 9.7.2005 on the

statement of respondent No.2 a case was registered vide FIR No.200/05
at Police Station Sadar Sangla Hill, District Nankana Sahib in respect of
offence under section 302 PPC. According to the complainant that he is
residing at Faisal Abad and his son namely Arshad Mehmood was
residing along with his family members in the Village Diggri. On
8.7.2005 he came to the house of said Arshad Mahmood in order to see
him. On 8/9-7-2005 at night his son Arshad Mahmood was sleeping in
the courtyard of the house along with Sajida Bibi (daughter in law),
grand sons and daughters, when four unknown persons, all armed with
deadly weapons entered into the courtyard of the house by scaling over
the wall and they woke up the complainant, Sajida Bibi and other
children at gun point and further asked them not to raise noise and to
remain silent. The said Arshad Mahmood was sleeping in the
courtyard. Later on the said assailants took the complainant along with
other family members in the room and bolted the same. The assailants
said that they would kill Arshad Mahmood and they also warned us as
not to make any noise otherwise they would also be killed. Thereafter
at once voice of fire was heard and the assailants fled away by scaling
over the wall and we kept silent due to fear. At about 4.00 A.M. we
raised hue and cry which attracted Abdul Wahid Lumberdar and his son
Amjad Ali who unbolted the door and released us. When the
complainant came out he saw Arshad Mahmood was dead on account of
above said fire.

3. That on the same date i.e.9.7.2005 the complainant got

recorded his supplementary statement to the police narrated therein that
the activities of the petitioner Sajida Parveen and her daughters were
doubtful and he would told about the situation after funeral ceremony.
Thereafter on 12.7.2005 the petitioner and her daughter Washifa
Naureen were arrested by the police, got recorded their extra judicial
statements and sent them to jail. The police submitted Report under
1

Section 173 Cr.P.C. of the case by placing the petitioner, her daughter
and Muhammad Munawwar in column No.3 of the report.

4. That on 24.5.2006 when the proceedings of the case were

in progress, respondent No.3 filed a private complaint under sections
302, 109, 34 PPC against the petitioner, her daughter and Muhammad
Munawwar by narrating a totally different story. The story of the private
complaint, in brief, is that the Wahifa Naureen had illicit relations with
accused Muhammad Munawwar as they intend to marry themselves with
the consent of the petitioner Sahida Parveen while her father was not
ready for this marriage and he allegedly gave severe beating to Wahifa
Naureen and petitioner Sajida Parveen on many occasions. On
8.7.2005 Sajida Parveen and Washifa Naureen called upon their co-
accused Munawwar at home and hatched a conspiracy for the murder of
Arshad Mahmood, father of the complainant. The accused Munawwar
brought sleeping pills and the same were administered to father of the
complainant by Washifa Naureen. The complainant forbade them not to
do so but they extended threats to her of dire consequences. After
administering sleeping pills at 11.00 P.M. accused Sajida Parveen and
Washifa Naureen tied the arms and legs of the deceased with the cot and
all the accused persons came in the room. Accused Washifa Naureen
handed over pistol to accused Munawwar with the direction to make a
fire upon the head of the deceased but the bullet was struck of and the
same again provided by accused Washifa Naureen and then accused
Munawwar again fired at the deceased by putting pistol upon his head
and left the spot. In the morning accused Sajida Parveen and Washifa
Naureen raised hue and cry by saying that some unknown persons had
committed murder of the deceased while committing dacoity. The
complainant was also given threats of dire consequences thus she
remained mum due to fear.

5. That the petitioner along with co-accused Mst. Washifa

Naureen and Muhammad Munawwar were tried by learned Additional
Sessions Judge Sangla Hill, District Nankana Sahib and vide his
1

judgment dated 28.8.2008 convicted accused Muhammad Munawwar

under section 302 (b) PPC with death penalty and he would also to pay

Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A Cr. P.C. to the legal

heirs of the deceased; while the petitioner Mst. Sajida Parveen and
Washifa Naureen were convicted under 302 (b) PPC and sentenced them
to imprisonment for life and they would also to pay Rs.50,000/- each as
compensation under section 544-A of Cr. P.C. to the legal heirs of the
deceased. The benefit under section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was given to the
accused.

6. That the petitioner and her daughter preferred a jail appeal

before this Honourable Court in which no date of hearing has yet so far
been fixed. Now the petitioner prays for her release on bail before this
Honourable Court inter alia on the following:-

GROUNDS

a). That the petitioner is absolutely innocent and she had never
committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

b). That the role attributed to the petitioner requires re-

consideration by this Honourable Court.

c). That the petitioner is an infirm old age lady having bad
health and deserves for her release on bail from this
Honourable Court.

d). That all the PWs are inimical towards the petitioner and
they had deposed falsely due to family disputes and enmity.

e). That nothing was recovered from the petitioner during her
arrest and the prosecution story is absolutely false, baseless
and unbelievable.
1

f). That the complainant of the FIR Sultan Ahmed (respondent

No.2) was never produced in the Court as PW which creates
much doubts in the prosecution story and the case of the
petitioner becomes one of further inquiry.

g). That the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of

law. There are many discrepancies pointed out during the
course of arguments but the learned Trial Court did not
consider them and a grave injustice has been done with the
petitioner.

h). That the impugned judgment is against law , facts,

circumstances and all norms of justice and has been passed
without considering the material available on record. In
such a situation the petitioner is entitled for her release on
bail till the final decision of the main appeal.

j). That the prosecution evidence has been wrongly relied

upon by the learned Trial Court. There were two different
prosecution stories brought before the learned Trial Court
by respondents No 2 and 3 which creates much doubts and
the benefit of every doubt always goes in favour of the
petitioner.

k). That no motive of the alleged occurrence was ever

attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner has no concern
in any manner with the alleged occurrence and the
petitioner being an old age house wife cannot even think to
commit the murder of her husband.

l). That the allegations leveled by the respondent No.3 against

the petitioner were never proved through independent
witnesses and all the prosecution witnesses were inimical
towards the petitioner and they falsely deposed against the
petitioner due to their personal grudge and enmity.
1

m). That it is quite in the interest of justice, equity and fair play
that till the final decision of the main appeal the sentence of
the petitioner be suspended and she be released on bail.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that till the final

decision of the main appeal, the sentence of the petitioner may kindly be
suspended and she may very graciously be released on bail, to meet the
ends of justice.

PETITIONER

Through

(GHULAM MUSTAFA CHAUDHRY)

Advocate High Court,
003-Lawyers Chambers,
District Courts Lahore.
CC No.P-LH-14416

Dated 17.11.2009

CERTIFICATE

Certified as per instructions of my client, this is the first

petition for suspension of sentence in the instant case,
before this Honourable Court.

COUNSEL
1

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Cr. Misc. No.__________B/2009

IN
Cr. Appeal No.____167_______J/2008

In re:

MST. SAJIDA PARVEEN.….. Versus …..THE STATE

I NDEX
_____________________________________________________________
S.No. Documents Date Pages .

1. Petition U/S 426 Cr.P.C. 17.11.2009 1 to 6

2. Power of Attorney 7
_____________________________________________________

PETITIONER

Through

(GHULAM MUSTAFA CHAUDHRY)

Advocate High Court,
003-Lawyers Chambers,
District Courts, Lahore.
CC No.P-LH-14416
Dated: 17.11.2009
1