Find a Lawyer

ABDUL AZIZ versus THE STATE

Section 302/324 [as amended by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1993]] Defendant's definition of evidence, although related to the subpoena, had no enmity with other witnesses of the accused who had no There was no connection whatsoever, there was no enmity with the accused. Such eye-witnesses could not be termed interesting witnesses. All eye-witnesses were examined at length, but they were not shaken and the accused was not shaken. No one has been found to be advantageous in the favor, nor have there been any hostility of witnesses against the accused. There was no reason to deny the witnesses simply because they were applicants when they had no motive or motive to make false accusations for any reason or other, even for the two groups. There was also no racial conflict between the witnesses at the time of the incident. Of these, the location of the incident had satisfactorily explained its presence and fully supported each other on the material point. The possibility that the conditions identified for the actual culprits were rejected in those circumstances During the identification parade, the witnesses of the prosecution had fully identified the accused. The incident was rejected because he himself admitted his presence at the scene of the incident. After more than a year after the incident, statements of witnesses were recorded in court, the minor contradictions identified by the defendants were not of the nature that could prove the prosecutor wrong. In a full prosecution case, beyond any reasonable doubt your case against the accused divorce advocates from Lahore lawyer