Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TAZEEM versus THE STATE

Pakistan Panel Code Section 307/341 / 147/148/149 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Sanctions Laws Enforcement Act (IX of 1974), Section 5/15 Proof of FLR was filed though five and a half hours after the incident. , But the delay, which was satisfactorily explained, was not fatal to the prosecution's case; the prosecution's witnesses were not only related to each other, but also closely related to the victim, the prosecution's witnesses were not only interested. , But also hated the accused because they were involved in civil and criminal litigation. The witnesses had to be very carefully and carefully evaluated and their evidence should be supported with some independent support, which was lacking in this case because of the differences and contradictory statements that made the incident suspicious, as did the complainant and the prosecutor. Witnesses had released a medical report. About twenty days after the injuries were examined and no delay was specified, the witness was recorded by the police ten days after the Star Prosecutor's statement and in the absence of any explanation, such statement was not inquired. There may be contradictions of ocular herbicides that went into the root of the case, and the prosecution's evidence was untenable. The evidence of the eyewitnesses who were not natural witnesses, who did not ask for the truth in their original and inherent value, did not inspire credibility and reliance on the evidence, and thus such testimony is needed to secure a secure transfer of justice. In such cases, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be relied upon without the clear and robust sincerity of the allegedly used Pakistan, top advocate family court from Madinah lawyer