Articles 7 (a) and 32 Criminal Code (v. 1898), Section 544 Terrorism Act was filed immediately in the FIR clearly mentioned the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of the incident. Who had proven that the accused called the deceased with the ransom money bag at the scene of the incident, snatched the bag and opened fire on the victim, resulting in his death which led to his death. And the suspect had recovered the pistol. The victim, who proved that the pistol was used during the incident, along with other documents kept in the victim's bag was also recovered from the accused, and on record it was proved that the medical evidence according to the accounts Were. Reliable witnesses allege that the accused had committed the murder of the victim in a most brutal manner and that the accused was convicted of the crime and his death sentence along with the fine d. A review petition was filed to compensate the deceased's heirs, CRPC was not compliant with the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and applied for action under section 32 of the said Act. The Anti-Terrorism Court, before the extreme manner in which the deceased was murdered, had sufficient cause to provide compensation to its heritage under Section 4444 AA, CR PC. It was directed to pay the deceased's legacy as compensation, 000,000,000 rupees, or the default is to spend two years, section I
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
