Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE

The testimony presented by both witnesses in the section 9 and 14 of the Explanatory Code (XLV of 1860), the testimony of section 382, did not disclose the facts of the defendant's possession of the property and disclosed only the arrest. ? The accused was abducting a stolen motorcycle and then recovering a pistol from it was an important component of the actual elimination of the property, which was wrong to hold the accused responsible for Hood's sentence. There was also a second requirement that the two witnesses mentioned above need to be subjected to the purification of the evidence, the evidence on record was not complied with, therefore, it was not sufficient to convict the accused in the crime of perpetual culpability. Evidence of prosecution was also on record. That the accused had committed a motorcycle theft after armed himself with a pistol from which it was recovered and his possession at the time of arrest the offender was declared guilty of the offense under section 9 under the Ordinance 1979. , And was instead sentenced under section 382, section 14 of the Ordinance read with PPC. And he was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000 because he was a former offender and the sole breadwinner of the family. family advocate from Lakki Marwat lawyer