Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ versus STATE

The fatal injury, of course, was attributed to the co-accused, but the presence and effective use of the suspect on the spot with firearms was a separate act proving his common intention. Through which he claimed alibi. The accused was not established by any evidence when the mere claim of being out of the country at the time of the incident was not sufficient to revoke the evidence of his fugitive, the prosecutor said. The only available eye-witness testimony that was offered was important, not appropriate, to the fair decision of this case before the failure of the prosecution, leaving the court with such material and important evidence to reach the correct decision. And the defendant was prejudiced even in making his defense properly courtable, in which case it was his duty to impose such a person. The witness testified that the evidence was necessary and necessary for the mere verdict of the case. Was remanded for a fresh hearing and a fresh verdict. advocate from Samma Satta lawyer