Find a Lawyer

PASHTOON YAR versus STATE

The defendant did not deny that Pakistan Penal Code Sections 324/34 and 337D provided testimony, appreciated the presence of the incident and that the complainant had been shot with a pistol, but requested that the incident occurred in an incident. However, the various methods presented by the accused, however, did not prove on record that the accused did not explain on the record why he was a fugitive and the police for the alleged crime committed by the complainant trial court. The matter was not reported, however, in accordance with the provisions of Section 324, PPC, the decision which was to be corrected was against the accused. After finding the offense under Section 324, PPC, the trial court should have sentenced the complainant in addition to sentencing him for the injuries he suffered. Under Section 242424, the PPC Medical Certificate shows that four of the complainant's injuries extend to the cavity of the box body, which falls under Section 337D, PP. C and sentenced to RI for 10 years, because the trader and the accused paid 1 / 3rd of the throne as a result of being convicted under 5 7 337 D, PPC and also on three years. With conviction / RI payment of Rs. 94, 953 injured complainant co-accused were convicted under the same charges under Section 324, PPC under the High Court and sentenced to 5 years RI. The RPI was sentenced to the accused under Section 324, PPC, under the trial. In keeping with the 5 year RI consistency law, both sentences were ordered to run in accordance with the benefit of Section 382B, CR PC. lawer from fb area from More kunda lawyer