Because of the provisions of section 4 334 and Ca 34, this definition of common intention evidence, the details of the incident, such as the names of the accused persons, their role, was fully mentioned in the FIR, attributed to the accused. The anglers had the full support of the medical evidence. Residents of the same village and know each other, and relations between the parties were strained The incident was a one-day incident, with no possibility of mistaken identity, the accused filed their complaint under Section 342, CR PC The statement made a special request. They were sleeping under trees and some unknown assailants cut off the victim's nose and lips. It was unbelievable that someone cut off a person's nose and lips, and he remained unaware of the identity of the attackers; the accused persons failed to prove their plea, the crime, the knife. The weapons recovered from the suspects were also affected. Recovery was always considered to be a controversial piece of evidence, with the accused person, who, moving his normal course, acting in a desperate and daring manner, cutting off the nose and lips of the affected person, did not deserve any relaxation. Yes, the prosecution proved its case. Without any doubt, no exemption can be taken against the accused against the accused under Section 343434/34, PPC, as sentenced in the trial case and Section 343434. The conviction of the accused is maintained under /, 34, PPC, under the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
