Find a Lawyer

GUL NASEEB versus STATE

Articles 396 and 34 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Clause 164 Re-examination of the Confession Statement Defending the Combined Purpose and the Responsibility of the Joint Commission During the investigation, the accused confessed to his crime and described it in the Section 164 CR PC Trial. Filed under Court. In the confessional statement and other evidence presented by the prosecution, the accused was convicted under Section 396 PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and the trial court sentenced the trial court to federal trial. Was retained, though he did exempt his partner in the commission. The robbery but had no intention of killing him, along with the evidence found in the evidence and the legitimate statements of the prosecution witnesses with the medical evidence, concluded that the defendant's confessional statement was the correct case and, therefore, both the courts Rightly believed. The principle of joint responsibility relied on the existence of a joint intention of Article 34 PPC which charged the accused with committing a criminal act in the deliberation of such intention. The accused did not intend to kill their accomplices, though they intend to commit another crime in the company, the responsibility for the murder cannot be reduced. A default plan indicating any intent in the meaning of section 34PPC was identified and, therefore, its application requires proof that the criminal under the default plan The action was taken. Until now the crime of robbery was concerned, the responsibility of the accused was shared with each other. The accused was not responsible for the murder of the accused since it was committed according to a default plan. immigration advocates contact from Ziarat lawyer