Find a Lawyer

NIAZ MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Sections 200, 202 and 203 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), the dismissal of the section 302 private complaint petitioner / complainant who was the father of the deceased girl, did not state the name of any of the accused who committed the murder of the deceased. And only he stated that the applicant had also claimed that the concerned police station had taken a sum of Rs.100,000 and registered a theft case against them. It was also reported that the girl was mysteriously killed and police had falsely claimed that the girl had poisoned her. Other witnesses who were not eyewitnesses to the incident did not specifically point fingers at the perpetrator of the crime. It was not enough for the police to initiate action against the police, in a private complaint, before the accused was summoned to face trial, the trial court had to satisfy that the accused. Was initially charged with prosecution, which was summoned. , Also had the right to know why he was summoned and on what evidence he was called to face trial in a murder case in which he could be sentenced and sentenced to death. Can also be given, was the basis of the evidence presented by the applicant. Speculation and allegations and even the names of the accused and their role were not explained, the death of the girl in police custody can be a tough situation against P. Olive's officer, but it was the complainant's duty to identify the policemen who detained him and into whose custody he was poisoned, immigration advocates email from Multan lawyer