Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SULAMAN versus STATE

Pakistan Penal Code Section 2302/34 34 Testimony of Evidence Prior to the incident, there was severe enmity between the parties for the various killings, the complainant who filed the FIR immediately by the complainant himself. Any possibility of making false accusations was eliminated, which was a material witness. Naturally, what he saw was his statement and his statement cannot be defamed; the prosecution's two witnesses were close relatives of the victim, but the third witness was an independent witness, although he was declared an enemy. That was not the truth itself. It is sufficient to reject his evidence completely, to the extent that he has corroborated other evidence, especially when he was found to have been a fair witness, as to the time, date and place of events such as the prosecution. A witness said. As revealed by the other two witnesses, the circumstances proved that there were objections to the presence of the incident, which was never solicited as the incident was different and neither was raised during the trial. Was alleged and did not request that the place be different. The appeal cannot be allowed to prevail at a late stage in the appeal, otherwise when the incident was seen in the light of the entire record on file, it was found that the prosecution had disclosed that the police had no small motive The motions or the intentions were not convicted of the crime, but could not be given to the accused as a standard. Evidence was not available in this regard, but the accused could be sentenced to a fresh trial because the accused's crime was free and natural. law firms from Thari Mirwah lawyer