Article 2 (b) and Q 100 Q The definition of the right to private defense of the AMD private defense The mention of the prosecutor's story in the FIR was highly improbable and did not appeal intellectually when the victim and A few days before the incident, the victim could not explain why the accused, with the accused at night, called the prosecution's eyewitnesses to explain what happened during the strange hours of the night. Why the victim entered the room of the accused's house - was it that the suspect had a hit of hatchet near the victim's right eye, but no sieve was recovered from the accused. There is a dispute between the medical evidence and the prosecution case from the possession of a co-accused during the investigation, as listed in the FIR prosecution. And they only said that the suspects had allegedly done the blow to the victim, 29 days after the incident, the blood-stained "cask" and "bat" were recovered, and so on. More than 40 were submitted to the chemical testing office. It was not a month before the prosecution's incident that the suspect used three different weapons, \ Case \, \ Bat \ and \ Gun used, but there were positive reports about the Franzic Science Laboratory, Chemical Examiner and Serologist. According to the affirmative report, there was no benefit to the prosecution, the prosecution could not prove any motive against the accused. Was complete with her
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
