Find a Lawyer

QAIM versus STATE

Section 14 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Clause 411 evidences the evidence for the reasons that, according to their statements, when they saw the suspects snatching the buffalo, but they pursued them for a mile, but they were caught. Taken or failed to retrieve, the two suspects were armed with firearms but there was no allegation by the complainant in the FIR that any of them had fired. Although the case also stated that a fugitive suspect was shot on the spot, this is not only a clear improvement, but the statement made by the prosecution witness did not provide any support. And the crime against property (enforcement) was not dependent on maintaining the offense under section 14 of the Ordinance, 1979. All the accused were convicted under Section 14 of the Crimes against Property. Recovered from one of the suspects and when the buffalo was recovered, he was not shown to the accused and other accused persons, while the accused could not be held responsible for committing any crime when the buffalo's recovery affected another. The accused was also not claimed to be present. Although he was arrested on the day of the recovery, recovery at a different time and at a different location revealed that the accused did not associate him with the crime of stealing buffaloes, the buffalo was taken into custody by the accused. Along with him and his accomplices (fugitives) were acquitted and the prosecution's testimony was recovered in their possession, which stated that the accused had not taken an oath about the recovery of the buffaloes. It's unusual to say immigration advocates email from Shujabad lawyer