Find a Lawyer

AMIR ZAMAN versus THE STATE

The testimony of the prosecution witness, who was the wife of the accused who murdered his father, confirmed the first informant's statement on every material point, except that the accused was found guilty. Angry with his wife, he left his wife. The case of the father and brother was neither sudden nor serious provocation as there was no background of any other incident in the case which led to it - Section 302 (c), PP for the purpose of punishment. C may also cause minor irritation in the circle. Although the incident had no purpose, the accused was not justified in the death of his father-in-law, who was taking his daughter, who was the accused's wife, to his house, through the accused with his wife. He was charged with disorderly conduct. Responding to himself and treating his mother-in-law with respect to his wife-in-law decided to take stern action against his mother-in-law. Born either by his wife or his father-in-law, but because of his frustration with his wife, his intervention led to retaliation against his father. That if the accused's wife left her parents' house without her permission, she would not, in any case, demand the provocation as justification for causing the death of the innocent person. In the circumstances, the trial court rightly sentenced and sentenced him. list of supreme court advocates from Sohawa District Jelum lawyer