Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HAYAT versus STATE

Section 308 The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), an FIR was immediately entered in appreciation of Articles 2, 4 and 7 on the defendant's person, with a dagger constantly hit, which proved fatal. And both witnesses were residents of the same area. The complainant was the deceased's second assignment and the other witness was not in any way related to the complainant or the defendant, except that he was from the trial court's brief, leading to the argument that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused. But was convicted by the court. Section 308, PPC, is not liable for the offenses under Section 306, PPC on the basis that the murder was committed by the accused because the accused was 16/17 years old. He claimed that he was under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged incident, should be tried by a court established under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance. 2000 and he prayed for the remand of the de novo trial case, which stated that the Judicial Justice System Ordinance appeared in the special court one year before the release of 2000 and more than a year after the issuance of the said ordinance. The case remained pending till date, but no request was made by the accused during this period to move his case to the aforesaid. The accused failed to indicate that he was prejudiced against such a mistake, the Judicial Justice, the defendant's plea for a de novo trial under the system ordinance, was overturned in 2000, in these circumstances the trial. The accused was convicted by the court under section 308, PPC, but convicted under section 304 attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Burewala lawyer