Find a Lawyer

NOOR KHAN versus STATE

Sections 302 (b) / 149 and 302 (b) / 34 of the proof of the incident took place in the light of day, as the complainant, being the son of the deceased, had to be present in his house at the time of the murder of his parents. Had claimed. The other eyewitness, the complainant's father-in-law, cannot be trusted simply because at the time of the incident, the relationship with the common man was not exempt except to distinguish a rifle with a 12-bore gun and a pistol from a revolver. Could go Witnesses may not be clear about the injured seat when the suspects were firing deadly weapons, the complainant would never want to forgive the actual culprits who killed the boy with his father and mother in front of his eyes and In this case, there are contradictions in falsely executing the accused. And the contradictions in the prosecution's evidence were not enough to end the prosecutor's story on its basis, but the accusation proved that it caused the death of the deceased. Medical evidence in support of their joint intent fully supported the ocular account presented by natural eye witnesses, resulting in the conviction of the perpetrator under Section 302 (b) / 149, Section 302 (b). / 34, was converted to PPC. But their death sentence was confirmed, as per the directive, the legal heirs of the dead should be paid Rs 40,000 each. patent advocate from Kahuta lawyer