Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus STATE

Pakistan Panel Code Section 302/34 Testimonies of evidence Broad daylight incident eye witness, who owns the land adjacent to the scene, was working on his land at the time of the incident and was not attracted to the scene on the masked land. But the property of the witness was disputed from the scene of the incident, nor was the adversary advised of any enmity or enmity, which assured the natural and independent witness whom the accused committed the double murder, in his court. Testimony was given and the serious test successfully came to fruition. The incident in which he was mentioned in the FIR but also gave his deceased son a reason to wear a wig at the time of the incident. The complainant who was the father of the deceased, there was no previous rivalry against the accused, other prosecution witnesses who were also related to the complainant, they were residents where this incident occurred, the prosecution's witnesses are my relatives. They will not make interest-related witnesses, especially when medical evidence was fully supported by the death of the ocular account, not only the fully involved accused were found guilty, but also the defense version completed by the prosecution. Not proven as such, but this image did not prove beyond any doubt, medical evidence, retrieval and motions. When, when placed in a location linked to the story presented by the accused, it was condemnable and the reasoning was appealed, in which case, the accused was truly guilty. The victim was injured as a result of their joint intentions. The conviction is punished under Section 324/34 PPC tax advocates from Chaghi lawyer