Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FEROZ KHAN versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ

Section 417 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Fines (Enforcement Hood) Act 1985, sections 10, 11 and 16, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them, but the appellate court acquitted the appellate court on suspicion. While acquitting the accused, it was observed that the male accused had already undergone four years imprisonment, so he was entitled to benefit from Section 382B, CRPC and the woman after giving birth to the child. The accused was also entitled to relaxation in the matter. As punishment because the minor child's life would be ruined if she remained in jail, the lady accused was also entitled to benefit from Section 382B, the CPC upheld the appellate court's ruling. However, both the accused were retained by the Shariah court. He was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time he had already been convicted by the trial court as the accused had sentenced him and this was because he was charged with Section 382B, CR PC. After taking advantage of another matter, he was acquitted by the appellate court; the accused cannot be punished twice for the same crime; he always had a double view if he was acquitted. The innocence in the accused's favor would be that unless the offense is proved against him and unless a person is acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction, he cannot be convicted. In favor of this, the double determination of innocence was upheld by the appellate court and the Shariah court in the absence of any wrongdoing in the decisions and the appeal against those decisions was dismissed. advocate for immigration from Dadu lawyer