Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IQBAL versus THE STATE

The Pakistan Penal Code Section 302 testimony was acknowledged as an incident, but the purpose of being prosecuted with a different version of denial of witnesses' presence on the occasion was that the accused was 3/4 days before the incident of the dispute. There was a dispute with the deceased. In addition to the construction of the wall, the alleged prosecution witnesses, who confronted the accused, told the prosecution witnesses on the occasion of the prosecution's story regarding the time, date, location and location of the weapon used by the accused. Was reasonably established. The relevant time and the defendants, despite prolonged cross-examination, could not refrain from the presence of prosecution witnesses near the scene of the incident, the prosecution's witnesses, without any fault or addition, told the story of the prosecution Listed in, which is disputed by Medical. The version of the prosecution reinforced by the defense version of the crime and weapons recovery from the prosecution prosecution case was supported by natural and independent witnesses who have no rivalry or rebellion against the accused in the case of murder. Was, in the eyes of the eyewitness accounts and his credibility could not be doubted or even in the light of the defense, the allegations against the accused were fully established, the murder of the victim was proved deliberately, the accused was sent to trial. The court rightly sentenced, but the accused pleaded guilty to the motive and mystery of the prosecutor's story. It was, that the prosecution had stopped the real cause of the incident, the extreme death sentence, in the circumstances, would be inappropriate the death sentence was changed to life imprisonment. advocate for immigration from Blitang lawyer