Section 2 302 (b) /, 34, 4 324/34 & and 7 337 D / Q 34 Qatil Adham, Attempts to review Qutel Umeda and Jephah for proof of proof The death of both brothers open to any doubt No, but the accused came out with a grudge and self-defense pleas in the backdrop of a family affair that happened the next day, which was clearly described as abusive. Or torture of young girls related to the accused, the death of two people and the resulting escape of the suffering of other persons, including the accused, appearing as their own witness and the grave and sudden outrage raised by the accused. Presenting a defense witness to support specific requests for His statements under Section 342, CR PC, he excluded the burden as required under Article 121 of the Convention of Martyrdom, the 1984 defense version was plausible and credible. The ible case was one of at least one counter version, where the defense version could not be completely repulsed or dismissed, the most accused of girls, father and brother, could be said to favor themselves. Crossed the father during his imprisonment, and to the extent that the appeal was dismissed, the actions of the men should be decided at the back of the society to which they belonged, though they were provocative. And while they may not be able to rely strongly on the doctrine of self-defense, such situations still need to be considered, even when sentenced. As under Section 2?2 (b), the PPC court had the discretion and authority to exercise such caution and caution if circumstances warrant it.
