Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YAR versus THE STATE

Section 230 (b), 3 & 4 of 364 Legal Evidence (Ten of 1984), Article evidence40 Proof of extra-judicial confession was brought to the record in addition to being insufficient, the inference was inadmissible and It cannot be treated as a part. Specifically, where and how the deceased's body was found or recovered, witnesses' statements were limited only to the extent that the accused took them to that location. He also identified the place where he was killed and where he threw the slogan and these statements were given when the accused was in police custody. Without that, any other evidence of his assassination would not be subject to Article 40 of the Convention of Martyrdom. * 1984 and the evidence for the so-called detection or disclosure was not credible, even if it was strong, Cannot be treated as a substitute for evidence, nor can any secure e-dependency be charged with murder under Section 302, therefore, the PPC was not established against the accused and for that reason. The penalties and punishments of the accused could not be established under PPC. Sections 302 (b) and 201, resulting in the PPC, put credible evidence aside, however, it was available on record to prove that the accused had taken the deceased with him and that He was later killed in which articles related to the victim were recovered. For the instance of the accused from whom no explanation was given by him, it is only assumed that the abduction was done to commit the murder of the victim and that the accused under section 646464 The punishment jobs for fresh advocates from Nooriabad lawyer