Section 497 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1850), Section 302/34 conviction of a noble, common intention, denial of the honor killings against the accused and co-accused was that he was the victim (the complainant's son). ) When they suspect he had taken the charge of forging an illicit relationship with the accused's daughter (the deceased), that he saw both the victim in a compromise and lost his soul and was responsible for the incident. What, which was a natural result of immoral activity. Both were committed by the deceased, and that the act of the accused was a process of righteousness which came under the purview of law-abiding exceptions. The first FIR of the incident was given to the police by the victim's maternal uncle, in which the accused was named the sole culprit of the crime, after which the complainant filed a second FIR (current FIR) for the incident. ) In which he nominated four people, he was charged, and the maternal uncle of the deceased, who also had a first FIR complaint, actually happened at the house of the deceased girl's mother, therefore, There is a strong possibility that it was closer to the case reported to the police. The fact that it cannot be denied, that the defendant's defense in the name of honor killings or murder "honor" was not valid was that he committed a serious crime and that the outrage was a situation that led to the trial. After the hearing, the trial court sent. The defendant's evidence alleged that he presented the charge in a cold-blooded manner, with the prosecution's witnesses supporting the prosecution's case, with the defendant being charged under Section 4.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
