how to connect evd dvd player to hp m8300f pc

how to connect evd dvd player to hp m8300f pc


Important Features of Pakistan Penal Code

Section 1. Title and extent of operation of the Code. This Act shall be called the Pakistan Penal Code, and shall take effect throughout Pakistan.
Section 4
The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by:-
 (1) any citizen of Pakistan or any person in the service of Pakistan in any place without and beyond Pakistan;
 (4) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in Pakistan wherever it may be.
 Explanation: In this section the word “offence” includes every act committed outside Pakistan which, if committed in Pakistan, would be punishable under this Code.Extension of Code to extraterritorial offences.
Section 53.
The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are:
Firstly, Qisas;
Secondly, Diyat;
Thirdly, Arsh; 
Fourthly, Daman;
Fifthly, Ta’zir; 
Sixthly, Death; 
Seventhly, Imprisonment for life; 
Eighthly, Imprisonment which is of two descriptions, namely:– (i) Rigorous, i.e., with hard labour;
(ii) Simple;
 Ninthly, Forfeiture of property;
 Tenthly, Fine
 First five punishments are added by amendments and are Islamic Punishments.

The object and purpose of punishment is the prevention of crime and every punishment is intended to have double effect, viz, to prevent the person who has committed a crime from repeating the act or omission and to prevent other members of community from committing similar crimes. The main object of awarding punishment for offences is to create such an atmosphere which may become a deterrence for the people who have propensities towards crime and thereby prevention of offences so that the society in which all the members have to live may not feel suffocated, distuebed and prone to unhealting environment. The measure of punishment therefore, must vary from time to time according to the condition of a particular crime and other circumstances. The object of punishments being preventive, Penal policy of state should be to protect the society.
According to this theory the punishment is awarded to deter people from committing the crime. Emotion of fear play a vital role in man’s life. The peole fear to commit the crime because it will render them to suffer. The fear of punishment put a check not only on criminal from committing further crime but also on all other evil minded. In spite of its weakness this has not entirely been eliminated from the policy of modern court of criminal justice. Hegal strongly supported this theory.
The theory is based on the principle of an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. The offender should be punished according to the nature of injury caused by him to the victim. In other words punishment should be in proportion to the injury caused by the accused. This theory does not look to the motive but to the intention in committing the crime. According to Salmond, t suffer punishment is to pay a debt due to the law that has been violated.
This has also been called theory of dsablement as it aims at, preventing the crime by disabling the criminal. In order to prevent the repitition of crime , the offenders are punished with death, imrisonment for life. For example, a murder is commited by A and he is punished. Here A is punished not for having committed the murder, but in order that no further murder be committed. This theoty has been commented by many writers on the ground that prevention of crime can also be done by reforming the behaviour of the criminal.
 The object of punishment according to this theory should be to reform the criminals. The cime is a mental disease which is caused by different anti-social elements. Therefore, there should be a mental case of the criminal s instead of awrding them severe punishment. Much truth lies in the statement that to open a school is to close a prison. if a persons of criminal mind are educated and trained there will be a little or not at all possibility of any crime being committed by them. The punishment therefore should be curative or corrective because no body could be cure by killing. In modern times much imortance is given to reformation or rehabilitation of the criminals.specially the young offenders in whose case this theory has very successfully applied. This theory has however failed in the cases of professional and habitual offenders.

Term of imprisonment solitary confinement


Not exceeding six months 
a time not exceeding one month

exceeding 6 months but not exceeding one month
time not exceeding two months

Exceeding one year
ime not exceeding three months
It is clear from the above that a sentence inflicting solitary confinement for the whole term of imprisonment is illegal. It must bear only a portion of the term of imprisonment.

 Section 74 of the code further limits the solitary confinement by providing that in executing a sentence of solitary confinement , such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.

Solitary confinement as a ruleis not ordered unless there are special features appearing in the commission of the offence.

Use and criticism

Those who accept the practice consider it necessary for prisoners who are considered dangerous to other people (“the most predatory” prisoners), those who might be capable of leading crime groups even from within, or those who are kept ‘incommunicado’ for purported reasons of national security. Finally, it may be used for prisoners who are at high risk of being attacked by other inmates, such as pedophiles, celebrities, or witnesses who are in prison themselves. This latter form of solitary confinement is sometimes referred to as protective custody.


 A person is said to counterfeit who:

 (i) Causes one thing to resemble another thing.

 (ii) Intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or

 (iii) Knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced.

(1) It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.

 (2) When a person cause one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practiced.

 (S. 28)

Solitary confinement in PAkistan Penal Code

Solitary confinement

Solitary confinement is a punishment or special form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, excluding members of prison staff. It is considered by some as a form of psychological torture. It is usually cited as an additional measure of protection (of society) from the criminal. It is also used as a form of protective custody.

Solitary confinement is colloquially referred to in American English as the ‘hole’, ‘lockdown’, the ‘SHU’ (pronounced ‘shoe’) or the ‘pound’, and in British English as the ‘block’ or the ‘cooler’

 This is a kind of imprisonment which secludes the prisoner from any intercourse or sight of, and communication with other prisoners. it may be accompanied with or without labour.

 Section 73 of pakistan penal code provides that whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under the code the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment , the court may by its sentence , order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sntenced, not exceeding three months in the whole.

Attempt to escape from custody


The provisions relating to an attempt to escape from custody are contained in sections 224,225, and 225-B of the pakistan penal code.

They provide punishment

 (a). for a person resisting or obstructing the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, orescaping or attempting to escape from legal custody. 
imprisonment upto two years with fin or with both.

 (b). resisting or obstructing lawful apprehension of another person for an offence or rescuing or attempting to rescue him from legal custody. punishment up to two years or with fine, but if the person to be apprehended is charged for an offence punishable :

 (1). with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years.

 (2). or with death the sentence provided is up to three years and seven years respectively and

(c). resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension or escape or rescue in cases not covered by the above two provisions. 
Imprisonment up to six months or with fine.


The word “harbour” according to section 52-A, includes the supplying a person with shelter, food, drink , money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of conveyance, or the assisting a person by any means to evade apprehention.

The various provisions in the penal code relate to harbouring or concealing a person knowing him to be an offender with the intention of screening him from legal punishment, harbouring or concealing an ofender having escaped from custody, or whose apprehension has been ordered, and knowingly harbouring any persons who are about to commit or have committed Robbey or Dacoity.

 The above provisions however, do not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by the wife or husband of the person harboured, (sections 212, 216, 216-A)

 The above However, presupposes that some offence has been actually committed and that the harbourer gives refuge to a person knowingly that thereby he helps to evade his apprehention or screens him from legal punishment . It does not apply to the harbouring of persons, not being criminals, who abscond to avoid or delay a judicial investigation

Criminal conspricay

Conspiracy differs from oter offences in this respect that in other offences the intention to do a criminal act is not a crime of itself untill something is done amounting to the doing or attempting to do some act to carry out the intention, conspiracy on the other hand consisit simply in the agreement or confederacy to some act, no matter whether it is done or not.

 When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:

 (i) an illegal act

 (ii) or a legal act by illegal means

such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy, provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof…… section 120-A PPC.


As regards punishment section 120-B P.P.C provides that one who is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shal, where there is no provision for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished as an abettor of such offence, in other cases he shall be liable to a punishment that may extend to six months , or with fine or with both.


As regards the difference between abetment and conspiracy the former is the wider of the two, it is a genus of which the offence of conspiracy is a species. Abetment may be committed in various ways enumerated in section 107 and 108 and conspiracy is one of them. Abetement per se is not a substantive offence, while criminal conspiracy is a substantive offenceby itself and is punishable as such.

Difference Between Sections 34 and 149 of PPC

To a certain extent both sections are overlapping and both can be invoked against the accused when there is no difference between the object or intention with which the offence is committed. But it was pointed out in a case by Privy Council that there is such difference in the scope and applicability of section 34 and 149 inspite of their similarity. Section  149 is wider in its sweep and longer in its reach than section 34. The actual participation in action is the essential  element of section 34 but membership of the unlawful assembly is the leading feature of section 149 PPC. Section 34  merely declares a rule of criminal liability but section 149 creates a specific offence. Common object is different than  common intention as it does not require prior concert and a common meeting of minds but an unlawful object is  developed when people assembled together. At least two persons are required to share the common intention under.