MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE THROUGH ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE-GENERAL, MIRPUR CIRCUIT
Section 302 (b) / 34/308/337 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Constitutional Laws (Enforcement) Act (IX of 1974), Section 25 Qatil Emad, joint intentions, not guilty pleas of the accused, evidence of Shuja's conviction, The accused accused of lacking any direct ocular evidence was not linked to the commission of the alleged crime; the joint statement of the witnesses of the two female prosecutors, first filed under section 164 by the magistrate, the CC pagestrate deliberately or Failure to record a record unlawful by the provisions of the law Syed Lady witnesses testified in her judicial statements, according to the legal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Nie was not endorsed and was called a counter-examination of the alleged statements filed under Section 16464, CRPC, revealing that these statements were not of the nature of which someone was imprisoned for 14 years. Imprisonment can be punished. Her witnesses were also not of the standard to satisfy the conscience of the court for the 14-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, substantially reducing the circumstances and grounds of compassion to reduce the sentence imposed on the accused. Was given a 10-year rigorous sentence. The prisoner who has been in constant jail since his arrest, was sentenced to more than 10 years imprisonment; the accused, who was very poor, unable to pay the dues, will be released after being punished. , Under the circumstances
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2012
