Find a Lawyer

ALI IMRAN versus STATE

Section 7 Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), section 302 (b) / 34 reduced the response to evidence, the offender was convicted and sentenced to death for murder of a police constable and sentenced by a trial court. Listened to. The court had raised through the accused that no witness was brought to the record except the sole statement of the complainant constable so that the accused could be connected to the commission of the crime. The accused also pleaded that they could not be identified. Which of the two suspects was individually responsible? Accused of firing at the deceased police constable, the death sentence was not justified in the death sentence, which followed the rickshaw on a motorcycle with the deceased constable, in which the accused was the most natural in the company of the accused. Was a witness. Similarly, the rickshaw driver identified the accused in the trial court on the spot. Similarly, the trial court stated that the accused and his deceased partner were riding in a rickshaw with two policemen riding a motorcycle. The officers chased after the suspects started firing at them from the rickshaw which resulted in the police constable being hit and he died at the joint. In the light of this factual statement made by two witnesses, the accused's responsibility was clearly established, and being equally responsible for the murder, he was properly punished under section 2302 (b). Was heard, since the charge against the accused proved unsustainable, therefore, no exception. The offender can be found in the trial court as well as the High Court finding. It is not known whether the assassin killed the constable famous supreme court advocate from Tarnol lawyer