Find a Lawyer

SHAISTA BEGUM versus THE STATE

The definition of evidence in section 5 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Conduct Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, in connection with the recovery of the body of the victim was found to be material contradiction which was not recovered which the accused allegedly confessed. Was not disputed by independent evidence. It did not prove voluntary, but was made under pressure and pressure from the police on the story of the mystery confession, it cannot be believed and the conviction cannot be sustained on that confession, one month and twenty days. After the FLR was filed, the prosecution's disappearance and conviction were not given by the prosecution because it was stated that the FIR had been disclosed with unlawful delays, but no prosecution had been filed in this regard. No reasonable explanation was given, which made the prosecution's case very suspicious. Despite their availability at the relevant time, the prosecution's witnesses did not accept the robot's alleged confession on the material details of the case, the prosecutor had reasonably failed to prove beyond doubt, the defendant tried, punished and sentenced The accused was convicted. pakistani advocates Karore Lalisan lawyer