Find a Lawyer

HAQ NAWAZ versus THE STATE

Section 171717 of the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), Section 324/337 F (v) was injured at the time the appeal was filed against the appellant / complainant and the accused had a special role at the time of the incident. He fired two bullets from his rifle 7 mm. The one who targeted the complainant, the eyewitnesses who claimed to be on the spot, had long been subjected to cross-examination but their statements were not broken, both witnesses accused. Were exempt from the status quo, medical evidence was according to the ocular account and there was no contradiction. It was alleged that he had been falsely involved by the complainant when inquiring about the complainant's brother, no material evidence was supported on the record, but the accused's involvement in the incident was medical. Evidence and retrieval were the help that was presented in it. The presence of police witnesses in violation of Section 103, CRPC, still cannot be the basis for denying the fact. During the trial, after the trial, the appellate court did not consider them justified to be acquitted, but because of this the appellate court's decision was left to some extent. The defendant's conviction and sentence were retained, although he was shown to be on the spot equipped with a 7m rifle, but did not cause any injury to the complainant or the witnesses and the participant's involvement in the incident was not proven. And it was also suspected that he related the joint intention of the accused at the relevant time or dismissed the accused twice, but Sh. famous high court advocate from Matiari lawyer