The definitions of Sections 302 (b) / 149, 324/149, 334, 337a (i), 337f (i) and 148 evidence records did not show which of the parties was physically occupied with the land in dispute. ? On the day of the incident, the controversial party had tried to prevent the accused party from operating the land after entering the disputed land. It cannot be ruled out that the accused had taken into account the sale transaction and the entry of their property. According to the Revenue Record, the idea of legal occupants on the ground was shaken when the complaining party tried to intervene and the accused injured the complaining party, however, in the wake of the incident. Were not equipped with weapons yet did not go to the scene of the incident, intending to commit murder or being injured. The apparent aim was to refrain from any interference by performing only plow the land and power, it was suddenly fighting. The land was occupied and each individual was responsible for his own actions. Through the trial and trial, the accused were convicted by the trial court and each of them was sentenced by the High Court and sentenced for their respective offenses. Accordingly
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
