Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MURTAZA versus THE STATE

Pakistan Panel Code Section 302 Evidence of the testimony The ocular testimony of eyewitnesses was confirmed with the testimony of the first informant, which turned out to be a crime on the information provided by one of the eye witnesses. An FIR was immediately filed with eyewitness testimony, and the hatchet was found to have a blood stain on the identification of a previously informed suspect, a chemical analyst who is the only suspect, the perpetrator substituted. It would be rare, even if the evidence of Hecht's recovery was ignored, the testimony of eyewitnesses and the testimony of the prosecution's witness was sufficient. To prove that the accused had a blow, the case against the accused was the same blow as the accused did not repeat the blow from his hatchet. Suddenly the accused spotted the dead person at the hotel and the accused. No prejudice was generated by The motions suggested by the prosecution were such that the deceased was initially listed under Section 7307, with intent to kill, causing the hatchet to explode, at the PPC and at the hospital the next day. Dead, knowledgeable and its target cannot be termed the attacker. In the event that the accused does not intend to cause death, the accused under section 302 may bear the burden of knowledge on punishment or punishment. , The PPC was changed under section 304 (11), the PPC and the death sentence were changed to ten years rigorous imprisonment. criminal advocate from Hujra Shah Muqeem lawyer