Find a Lawyer

AHMED DIN versus STATE

The appreciation of the provisions of Sections 302 and 307/34 showed the right of the private defense, the FIR, to show that it was on the part of the complainant, who had evaded the house from the possession of the accused, to take the law into his own hands. Invited trouble, otherwise. According to the law the deceased, as the owner of the house, refused to grant the occupant the possession of the house, the deceased should have taken legal action that the complainant gave the party the right to defend the property through the same action. The accused was not authorized to take the law into his own hands and even if some persons were in unlawful or unlawful possession of any property, the owner was entitled to take possession of the property. Could not resort to coercion, in the circumstances, it would be in his favor to defend it. Medical evidence confirms the defense version of the fact that the suspect and his wife suffered serious injuries during the OK. The location of the incident, which was the home of the accused and his wife under attack, showed the possibility of a correct version of the defense, which further stated that the complaining party was armed with sharp weapons. He was also equipped with two handguns and because of this, the eyewitness testimony of the wounded also supported the defense version, which was more likely and closer to the fact that the accused had defended the property and the person in favor of his defense. Did not cross and did not commit any crime while defending his property, himself and his wife, under the circumstances, on this charge Was acquitted criminal advocate from Usta Mohammad lawyer