Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ILYAS versus STATE

The testimony of eye witnesses was closely related to the late, but it was not unusual for the accused to be falsified against the accused. The incident was a widespread incident. The delay in doing so was reduced to mystery, was not. The co-accused of the clarification, who were declared as Japah only, was convicted under Section 242424, PPC, which was against the law as it was either acquitted under section 2302 (b) /, 34. Should have been, the PPC was convicted under a joint intention, to spend seven years under section 242424, PPC and two years under section 7 337D, PPC, which is a punishment and punishment, This, too, was against the mandate of the law and should have been punished or punished under section 2 302 (b) /, 34, PPC. The co-accused had already suffered his sentence, nor had he filed an appeal against his sentence, nor had the State or the complainant charged Section 302 (b) / 34 with acquittal of the two accomplices. , The PPC prosecution was complete Lee's suspicions against the accused proved beyond doubt, but it was to be seen whether this was a death sentence or whether the accused's FIR was delayed. The motive was mystified because the prosecution failed to prove that because the victim had received a difference of opinion due to a fatal injury and it has been recorded on the record that the victim's daughter There was something wrong with the situation that was suppressing the situation. The defendant had gone in favor and this was a trial case and not a death sentence. Section 2302 (b), the death sentence while maintaining the conviction and conviction of the accused under PPC law firms from Chishtian lawyer