Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN versus THE STATE

Definition of Evidence Section 5/15 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Constitutional Laws (Enforcement) Act 1974 The eyewitnesses, although related to the deceased, were not interesting witnesses and were natural witnesses to the incident, which testified to each other on the material details of the prosecution. The matter could not be discredited in connection with the recovery of the crime. They were not confirmed by medical evidence, the recovery of guns from the suspects and other defensive evidence related to the defense evidence and property taken by the accused, both of the accused opened fire on the accused. When they were plotted to kill, they went to protest against the culprits moving the land under the conviction of an accused to be executed under Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Sentencing Act, 1974. In the circumstances, it was confirmed that the other accused, who also shot and killed a significant part of his body in daylight. Even under Section 5 of the said Act, the defendant deserved the usual punishment of the slaughterer. The eyewitnesses also met the required criteria and evidence in the case of the defendant, in the case of a lesser conviction, in any case the defendant was available in favor of the accused. In the circumstances under section 5 of the said Act, the defendant list of supreme court advocates from Besham lawyer