Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RIAZ versus THE STATE

Sections 302 (a) and 302 (b) define the evidence as the only person who committed the murder of the victim in the eyes of the complainant and other prosecutors in the ordinary day in which the FIR was registered without unnecessary delay. Included in all the required details was the incident where the complainant was the father of the deceased while the second witness to the prosecution was a resident of the area where the incident took place and was an independent witness. The two witnesses successfully tested the cross examination and there was no single question during the cross examination. Contempt of enmity was placed before them and no record was presented which shows that the witness has no intention of falsely implicating the accused in this case. Had failed to set up and such a defense request was made by him. Later, the prosecution's case was a single accused, the father of the accused had named the accused in the FIR was the real culprit and in such cases the change was very rare. Eyewitnesses reported that the Ocular Account proved to have recovered a malicious knife on the suspect's report and received considerable help from medical legal reports, the location of the injuries and the use of weapons, as described by eyewitnesses. And the presence of eyewitnesses proved that eye witnesses could not be dismissed, although there was no strong evidence in the record to support the purpose of the case. The prosecution's case was not enough to convict the accused less than to be argued, the purpose of which was to defraud the accused. power of attorney advocate Kunri lawyer