Find a Lawyer

SIRAJ versus STATE

Articles 426 and 345 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Rules 376/34 of rape, joint intention not to submit a compromise oath between the parties and to object to the suspension and release of bail. The parties had increased the crime. That the complainant and the victim had filed affidavits in which they had pardoned the accused in the name of Allah. Although the offense was not permissible, the High Courts have shown a degree of relaxation in the cases in which the parties have compromised. The accuracy complainant and the victim did not object to the suspension of sentence given to the accused and the affidavit on their release. The sentence given to the bail accused was suspended, in the circumstances, and he was released on bail.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• FARID VIRANI v. FEROZ VIRANI 2013 PLD 386
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, KARACHI v. GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI 2013 PTD 387
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. QASIM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL (PAK) LTD. 2013 PTD 392
• SECTIONS 284 TO 288 OF THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1984 2013 CLD 397
• AHMAD NASEEM v. NAUMAN ZAFFAR 2013 CLC 398
• Mst. SHIRIN BEGUM v. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI SOUTH 2013 MLD 398
• Syed NAZIM HUSSAIN ZAIDI v. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI 2013 YLR 400
• NAWAB AHMED KHANZADA v. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1934 AND COMMISSIONER WORKMEN\'S COMPENSATION FOR HYDERABAD 2013 PLC 402

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

solicitors from Gambet lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes