An attempt to compel Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 324/34 murder, cross-version of the FIR has been denied by the FIR denying that the accused and his co-accused brother were sued by the complainant. He was charged with direct firing while operating his vehicle. According to the fields and medical report, the complainant had five fireworks wounds, three of which were on the body parts, and the site plan and recovery memo revealed that blood stained ground was recovered from the injured claimant's place. And his blood-stained clothes were also fully supported by the circumstantial evidence recorded in the FIR, which linked the suspect to the commission of the crime, On the basis of the sentence, came under the prohibition clause of section 497. The CCP cross-version FIR, which was filed by the accused, showed that the disputed property was already in the possession of the complaining party and that the FIR also points to each other. After the gathering, the accused, along with his brother and other accomplices, went to the scene of the incident when the complainant was plowing in the field. The results of the incident indicate that the accused and his brother were also armed. Were. The accused and his accomplices, when armed with deadly weapons, were on their way to the scene of the incident and then fired at the complainant and subsequently suffered injuries to the complainant's body, which were clear indications, Used to point to action, style, style. And six people were charged in the cross-version FIR with the intention of the accused and his co-accused, of whom
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
