Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MAJID versus STATE

Section 302 (b) accused of appreciating evidence was a 19/20 year old boy at the time of the incident while the deceased spouse was about 30 30/32 years of age. The complainant himself stated that both the accused and the victim Proximity was born with each other and for this reason the complainant prevented the accused from coming to his house, but it was never mentioned in the FIR that the deceased had ever prevented the accused from coming to his house. Was stopped or the victim promised that she would not continue her relationship with the accused. He said that there was no reason for the deceased to be killed in the background, nor was there any reason for the accused to provoke the deceased against the deceased for any reason so that he could take his life. , But the electric bulb listed in the FIR was not shown. In one of the site plans developed by the investigating officer and the tracer eyewitness, it was not stated that any electric bulb was dead, causing a sharpening. Eight were injured. Weapons on different parts of his body since the deceased wore clothes at the time of the incident, so there would have been similar holes on the late wearer, but in the inquiry report, it was also not mentioned that the holes in the clothes. Nor did the doctor state that the dress was drilled. The prosecutor failed to explain why there were no holes in the clothes. The prosecutor's case was that the accused was a 19-year-old boy, the complainant, his nephew. And injuring the deceased in the presence of his uncle. Under normal circumstances, three adults who had taken affirmative action to save the victim's life would have been arrested by the attacker. advocate for immigration from Rawala Kot lawyer