Find a Lawyer

SUALEEN versus STATE

Sections 302 (6), 300 and 34 law evidence (10 of 1984), Article 121 Definition of evidence and the request for sudden provocation of the scope complainant stated in the FIR that the accused / appellant complained to the complainant's sister and niece. Who was married to The suspect, because the suspects were suspicious of his role, pleaded that since the two women were found to be in a state of compromise with the two men at night, the accused killed both women at the grave and suddenly provoked. Under the trial court, both the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment when the accused took part under Section 2302 (c) or Section 0000, under the exception of PPC, under section 121 of 1984, In 1984, the accused was summoned to the trial court for serious and sudden provocation to prove this specific request but the aforesaid request Was not accepted. The accused failed to question the Investigation Officer in his sewer, as the accused in the police inquiry complained of his grave and sudden provocation, before the SS examination. The court accused did not cause any injury to his associates. Who was allegedly found by the accused to have compromised with the deceased women but no money was found on the private parts of the victim women, the prosecution successfully proved their case against the accused while the defendant's defense. The version was one of the reasons why the trial court gave the accused the minimum sentence for reasons. S. The complainant's request for an increase in conviction was dismissed and the trial court, under trial, against the accused / appellants. property advocate from Bajaur lawyer