Find a Lawyer

AMJAD SULTAN versus THE STATE

The complainant could not explain how the Pakistan Penal Code Sections 302 and 324 evidence complied with how he knew of the accused's involvement in the case, despite the position that the accused did not know the complainant before the incident. Had made no arrangements for The identification parade was made through a supplemental statement identifying the accused, which was the statement of the complainant involved in the FIR in the diary of the case and the statement in the case that contradicted the material points. An FIR was lodged on the instructions and instructions of others to which no holiness could be attached. The complainant (eyewitness) was not a true witness of his own conduct and could not be relied upon by other witnesses. Who claimed that he had sustained injuries in the wounds. The incident was also untrue because he could not explain his presence on the spot and could not show any response. Also, because under section 161, his statement under CCP was made by the police. Did not record for two months, said the witness concealed the facts and made false statement; Medical evidence did not establish the conduct of the investigating officer due to conflicts with the ocular account. He was not off the board and Malala's misdemeanor prosecution could not be ruled out by the police, thus failing to stand on his feet, the accused was acquitted. list of advocates from FR Bannu / Lakki lawyer