In addition to the statement of the accused under section 2 302 (b) Constitution Pakistan, Article (O (()) Sec. 342), the recovery of dagger, meadow legal and post-mortem reports was also supported by ocular testimony, CCPC 17 The delay in the hour delays. In the FIR itself, the FIR specified that the victim's life-threatening person was hospitalized by the complaining party. Witnesses were denied arrangements, because even if that happened, everything could have been arranged within minutes after the incident at City Cricket Ground. The Ethicist had not deliberately involved anyone and brought the only charge that was true and logical in all respects, the effective character being the sole and only accused. By the way, the accused was not found to be falsely implicated, and thus illegal and malicious by delaying the question. R or whether he was bleeding or not, under section 342 of his The statement has been completely flawed in view of the confession of the incident; the CCPC accused had no right to private defense, at the same time when the dagger fell into his hands. The alleged assailant was, thus, not only because the accused had no right to attack the victim, but because he had no justification for killing the seven deadly daggers in the circumstances of the attack, rather than as a defense version. Leave. The appeal was denied under the circumstances
