The attempt to compel Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), section 324/34 murder, further prompted the question of the firing on the grant of further inquiry into why the accused had fired on the complainant. There was no direct purpose of firing against the complainant. Such a fact can be seen at trial. The medical evidence on record shows that the black complainant was near the seat of injury on the thigh. But this site was not planned to support the version of the victims because the distance between the attacker and the complainant was more than six feet and the pistol In the case of firing, there was no black color at such a distance. Such a case will be examined at the time of record of the evidence. If the relatives of the injured were taken to hospital, their names would have been written by the doctor, but the disclosure of the names of the survivors in the Medico legal document would have led to further investigation. Will The accused was a civil servant who voluntarily surrendered to the police and there was no possibility of his fugitives or violating the terms and conditions of the bail, nor was he convicted nor charged. Was charged. The incident of fire on the complainant was probably no enmity with his complainant, in this case the accused was not intended to kill the victim, which really needed further investigation as to how the incident happened. He had no intention. Detectives found murdered by the complainant, Section 32424, PPC would not be applicable and the only disadvantage would be Section 777A.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
