Find a Lawyer

SIRAJ DIN versus STATE

The accused was not hurt on suspicion of suspending section 426 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), sections 302 (b) and 324, but allegedly injured the prosecution witness who did not enter the witness room and The defendant's sentence was dropped in this case. Recorded on the basis of participation in the incident with a common purpose and intention, the co-accused was acquitted, with similar roles, whether it was the accused's general intention or someone else, at the time of the appeal Prima Fax hearing. It will be considered that the accused was sentenced in this case because of his brother's escape in the original charge, which the trial court had seriously considered the accused's sentence, was suspended in those circumstances. law websites from Garh Maharaja lawyer