Section 302 (b) and 364 law martyrdom (10 of 1984), Arts 37, 38, 39 and 40 Defendant's testimony with the accused and the kidnapping or kidnapping Investigation Officer went to the place where the accused opened fire on the victim. ? And buried it in the ditch, the investigating officer prepared for the Ford mark-villager at the site of the murder and from where the body was recovered. Both said the memo was confirmed and others testified that the action taken by the investigating officer did not come into it. The purpose of Article 40 of the Martyrdom Act, 1984, since the accused was in the custody of the Investigation Officer, would be to confess the crime and commit suicide, which in principle is contained in Articles 37, 38, 39 of the Law of Martyrs. Evidence on the principle of injunction was unacceptable The delay of ten days in filing the FIR and the complainant's conduct was highly questionable. The FIR was registered without any purpose, which was proved by the parties. Although the prosecution was not obliged to compose the motive, once it was set, it had to prove the same, there was a bad taste among the parties, the false interference of the accused was not possible. Could have been given. After a ten-day interval by the prosecuting officer, co-operation with the prosecution officer was accepted by the prosecution officer from any corner and corner. The forensic science laboratory report shows that the pistol was sent to the office as soon as the crime was cleared, evidence of recovery cannot be believed that the accused was accused of being suspected of nature, punishment and sentencing. The case has been filed. By the trial court
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
