PCRLJ 2013

2013 P Cr (PLP)

SIRAJ and 2 others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
2012-June-14
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2013 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members N/A
Parties SIRAJ and 2 others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 P Cr (PLP) (SIRAJ and 2 others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 426 & 345

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376/34

Rape, common intention

Offence not compoundable

Compromise between parties

Complainant and victim filing affidavits and not objecting to suspension of sentence and release on bail

Effect

Contentions of the accused persons were that the parties had compounded the offence; that the complainant and victim had filed affidavits wherein they had forgiven the accused persons in the name of Allah; that although the offence was not compoundable but superior courts had taken a lenient view in cases wherein the parties had effected compromise

Validity

Complainant and victim had extended no objection in the shape of affidavits to the suspension of sentence awarded to the accused persons and their release on bail

Sentence awarded to the accused persons was suspended, in circumstances, and they were released on bail.

Judgment & Decree

SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.

Through instant application, appellants seek suspension of sentence awarded to them vide impugned judgment dated 1-2-2012, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin in Sessions Case No.116 of 2010, whereby the appellants were convicted under sections 376 and 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000 each and in case of default thereof they were ordered to undergo further one year's imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that parties have compounded the offence; complainant and the victim have filed their affidavits wherein they have stated that they have forgiven the appellants in the name of ALLAH. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that though the offence is not compoundable, but in spite of that, the Superior Courts have taken a lenient view in such type of cases wherein the parties have effected compromise. The reliance is placed on 1995 PCr.LJ 1606, 2002 SCMR 184, 1998 SCMR 466 and 2004 PCr.LJ

923. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are in custody since 1-2-2012. Complainant Hussain and victim Saneeha are present along with their counsel Syed Madad Ali Shah. They have verified the contents of their affidavits and have raised no objection if the sentence awarded to the appellants is suspended and they are released on bail. Syed Meeral Shah learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State contended that since the parties have compromised, therefore, he has no objection if the sentence of the appellants is suspended and they are released on bail. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides. The deeper appreciation of the evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage. The complainant and the victim have extended no objection in the shape of affidavits to the suspension of sentence awarded to the appellants and their release on bail. Accordingly, while taking in view the peculiar circumstances and facts of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby suspended during pendency of the appeal and they are directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000 (One Lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. MWA/S-38/K Application allowed.