Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ versus STATE

Section 5 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Conduct Laws (Enforcement) Act 1974, the trial was based on evidence in the last circumstances and the final case of recovery was neither affected by trust nor dependable. ? That the witness did not see the accused himself in the victim's company, on the other hand, the victim told him that he was going out with the accused and that the prosecutor did not challenge the statement. Weight was to be given in the same manner because of its internal defects that required strong refinement of other conditions which were not available on record and therefore supported the evidence that came to the fore as being inconsistent in nature. Was not done In the example of the accused, the version of the prosecution was not confirmed. Under section 2342, the accused was acquitted; the CCP was either not part of the prosecution's story or was not acquitted by any of the prosecution witnesses. On the contrary, the record of the prosecution's evidence, without making it part of the accused's investigation file or seeking clarification on the content of the offending, seriously violated the accepted principles of abortion and fair play. Content that was made part of, was not placed before the accused under section 342, CRPC, the following courts were treatable No, the prosecution's case was filled with suspicion and the accused was acquitted on the basis of mere lusts and speculations. patent advocate from Digri lawyer