Find a Lawyer

ZAHID HUSSAIN ALIAS MITHU versus THE STATE

342 DDI / 7 337 ID 9449/34 34 The trial of the evidence and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused were challenged at an earlier stage that this incident did not take place in this way. As was stated in the FIR, all of this happened at the same time and not on two different occasions at different times. The incident was not predicted but was the cause of the moment and only one of the accused participated and was falsely accused of having his brother. The incident took place when the victim objected to the bird scaling the bird and scaling from the roof of his house to capture the shotbird, resulting in the exchange of hot words between them and The second incident took place fifteen minutes later when the accused and co-accused arrived at the scene armed with burglars and fatally injured the victim and injured the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons and the injured prosecutor. The witnesses are different, he concludes that the injuries did not come from a weapon and an accused, but of the same nature. Two different weapons and two different individuals, both the accused and his accomplices, proved that he participated in the incident. The witnesses and the deceased were unarmed at the trial of the injured because neither the accused nor the co-accused had even scratched their person in which in the absence of any evidence the defendant appealed for his defense. Was, by any means, the injured witnesses of the victim and the prosecution's injured witnesses, not only through medical evidence but also by the accused. famous supreme court advocate from Parachinar lawyer