Sections 302 (b) and (c) of conviction, aggression and self-control over compulsory AMD evidence do not suppress the accused (appellant) on the merits of his appeal and this debate only At the same time, the petitioner requested that the offense be committed under section 302 (c), PPC, because according to the integration of Islam, the conviction of the accused was not applicable in the present case, the complainant, the accused, the accused. And the prosecution's witnesses were all related to each other and there was no charge of enmity between them. The parties come to the record other than the defense version in which the accused showed some enmity between the parties on the false allegations of the FIR. The material on the record and the evidence of the complainant show that the purpose of this offense was merely to harm. The aggravating incident was due to self-restraint by the accused, as the prosecutor himself presented that the victim was accused of arguing with the accused daily and joking about being unemployed. He was 24/25 years old and seems to have had no benefit from committing the alleged crime, in this case Regardless of the facts and circumstances, he was entitled to concession and ease. An appeal for justice was allowed and the accused was convicted and changed from section 302 (b), PPC to section 302 (c), PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. Was heard that had already passed.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
