MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN versus STATE
The applicant requested the suspension of the sentence from Section 426 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 324, 337 A (iii) and 337 F (v), stating that the recovery from him was a suit. Because of this he was sentenced. A blow from the wrong side of the victim / prosecutor's witness's head, which is a clear legal error, the applicant's sentence suspension justification was fully justified, with the defendant's witness's legitimate prima facie attributable to the applicant. The injury was proven through a medico legal report, which revealed that the injury was caused by a two-pronged weapon that affected Sota's recovery from the applicant, which called for a deeper examination of the evidence. In the present case the application for suspension of sentence was dismissed, in the circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
female advocates from Jehanian lawyer
