Find a Lawyer

MUKHTAR AHMAD versus STATE

Section 302 (b) / 149/302 (c) / 149, 324, 337f (i) and 148 definitions of evidence supported by the prosecution put pressure on the defendant to reduce the injuries suffered by all the relevant The facts were not told truthfully. The delay of the day in filing the FIR provided the complaining party with an opportunity to rotate the facts, which would appear to have occurred between the fighting parties in which emotions and emotions were created and each had its own act. 148 and 149, therefore, the PPC was not interested in the case that the prosecution had summoned the two accused and exaggerated the facts by assigning the role of Lalcara and falsely involved them in the case. Who was acquitted of the allegation that the incident took place in the cricket field without trial, with two weapons. As bets and wickets were used and because the provocation was the main factor in the fight, the accused was sentenced to have been replaced by Secto due to the injuries sustained in the killing of N-302 (b), the PPC. 2302 (c), the PPC and his death sentence was reduced to ten years, according to the circumstances under which the injured person was injured by the prosecution witness, Jifa Damia, who was charged under Section 7 337F (i). Was added under Due to the PPC and the above mentioned injuries, the culprit was reduced from ten years RI to one year RI, which was dealt with on appeal. immigration advocates email from Kallur Kot lawyer