Find a Lawyer

PROVINCE OF SINDH versus SHAMS-UL-HASSAN

Section 1 Corollary Code (XLV of 1860), Section 304 A Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 High Court Appeal Fatal Accident Case, High Court Single Judge, A careful examination of the evidence presented by the defendants. Later, there is regular support with the documentation. , Concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff driver of the bus and in these circumstances the other defendants were jointly responsible for compensating the plaintiffs' legal / legal heirs. That one of the defendants was acquitted. Trial from criminal case. The fate of a criminal proceeding was not consistent with the purpose of determining legal responsibility. As in civil cases, a fact judge must look for a party that has the potential to offer, though the evidence is not completely, not independent doubt. However, in criminal cases the fact of the incident must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Determining the success of the crime in a criminal case did not in any way affect the decision of the civil cases; the evidence of the witnesses in the case was not challenged. And it could not be shaken. The lack of proof of the plaintiff's evidence for the evidence in the court and the non-availability of the bus driver were sufficient to hang the defendant with liability for compensation. The single judge correctly said that the defendants were the victims. Is jointly responsible for paying compensation to its clients power of attorney advocate Mangowal lawyer