Find a Lawyer

SAEE MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Articles 302 (c), 148 and 149 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Disposing of the evidence The benefit of the doubt was the blow to the deceased who fell into the pond and died, to the accused / appellant and co-accused. The trial court sentenced and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, while maintaining the conviction of the accused under Section 302 (c), the PPC reduced the sentence to 25 years and it was alleged that it was the complaining party. Who was the assailant and who attacked the accused party. In the counter version, the complaining party was challenged to stand trial. That the complaining party was convicted and punished accordingly. In the event of a sudden freelance of casualties in the fight, it cannot be definitively stated which party launched the attack or exceeded its defense, especially when the defendant received only one suit. There was a blow and then he fell into that war. Both the courts did not believe in the motive established by the prosecution but rather the proceedings were made by the accused party, the disclosure of the attraction of the complaining party to the aggression was justified as the investigating officer's prosecution made the matter reasonably suspicious. Had failed to prove beyond. Appeal was allowed for the crime of Mainz-Rey and the accused, who, without a doubt, deserved to be acquitted registration advocate from Abbaspur lawyer