Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RAHMAN versus STATE

Pakistan Penal Code Section 302/324/34 Defining Evidence 2 The co-accused, who were alleged to be armed with hatchets and one who incited the other, were detained by police during specific investigations into specific roles in the FIR. Had left despite nominating along. There was no reason for the police to explain why they were not allowed to allege another fellow accused of dismissing the rapist from the complaining party and recovering his possession, the trial court said. Done without giving any reason. The accused complainant and other prosecution witnesses who presented with ocular evidence did not recover from their acquittal and were also close relatives of the deceased and did not rely on their evidence in the absence of any independent confrontation. Could be done. And they could not be called credible witnesses, since there was a long trial between the parties and their relations were strained and the trial court acquitted the accused accused under the same evidence, it was their duty to benefit the accused. As the testimony of the witnesses was not affected, the prosecution witnesses showed dishonesty. The truth was not told before the trial court and the complainant and the witnesses also showed dishonesty about most of the police suspects and the investigating officer also revealed the crime, which did not carry out the investigation properly. Had given. After the trial court sentenced the accused to death, he was set aside for the benefit of the doubt. best law firm from Amangarh lawyer