In sections 302, 337H (2) and 34 Qatim Amad, hurried or negligent act, the definition of common intention evidence was alleged that the injured jaw was struck in the club during the incident Syed. The injured victim was not examined as a prosecution witness but was discharged because he said the injured victim had in fact made a statement in defense of the accused. Saying that no one was hurt. After the incident, the accused reached empty handed. The suspect was involved in the case because he had a very close relationship with the co-accused, and because his father was a rich man, the investigating officer admitted in his interim examination that several people appeared before him. During the scene of the rescue / intervention attempt only, and was empty-handed and no one was hurt, the prosecution's witnesses did not say a word on whether the accused and co-accused were planning and pre-meditating with the victim. Charged after arriving or sharing a common intention. In such cases the charge was acquitted, while it was allowed to appeal accordingly, giving it the benefit of the doubt.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
