Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASGHAR versus STATE

Sections 302 and 324/34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), sections 204 and 439 of the private complaint filed by the FIR and the complainant were against the same set of accused while Section 173, CRPC under the police In the report presented. The accused's set, namely that the complainant and his son, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident, were sent to face trial, the victim's widow also privately opposed the last set of accused The complaint was lodged in the Noor Divine case for hearing of the complaint in PLD 1966 SC 708 and the state's case was not fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the above case. The complainant's version and the private complaint were the same in the FIR and in the report under section 7373 the, the CCPS submitted by the police Only one of the three accused named in the FIR was sent to trial, while in the current case, the police arrived after an investigation. In sharp contrast, the alleged eyewitnesses of the complainant and the FIR were in fact murderous cases and the circumstances of the present case. Therefore, it was guaranteed that before making any final decision on the complainant's private complaint, the second version, which If the accused was made with someone else even after the commencement of the trial in the police case or after a preliminary inquiry into the private complaint filed by the victim's widow, it should also be brought to the trial court record and if The trial court would arrive. It ends up summoning the named accused, then their case will begin and it will be decided in both cases. patent advocate from Mehrab Pur lawyer