Sections 417 (2A) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 302/34, 324, 337 and 341 of the Crimes Against Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Enforcement Hood) Act 1985, Section 17 (2) Qatil Am, joint intention, Regardless of the reason for the attempt to commit the act, the appeal of the recapture of the evidence against the misconduct proceedings was not actually designated in the FIR because no one was involved in the incident. And the incident was a blind assassination that the prosecutor relied on. On Hecht's recovery, wrist watch and vest recovery, the suspects were not linked to the crime because they were recovered after considerable delay, which created a serious suspicion in the prosecutor's story once the case was settled. Was, then the whole responsibility was lying. To prove that even a slight suspicion of litigation was sufficient to acquit an accused, however, in the present case, many doubts were raised, no misinterpretation or misinterpretation of the interference guarantee. Was done It was affirmed by an order of acquittal by the trial court of the Supreme Court and by a Shariah court, which did not warrant interference in the appeal, saying that if it was found to be false and irrelevant, This order can be interrupted. Deliberative or plain wrong, however, when no such factor was available in the case, the complainant failed to identify any misrepresentation or reading of evidence under which both the above courts were not dealt with, In situations where the unwanted decisions were approved, they were rejected
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2013
