Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ANWAR versus AMANULLAH

Section 171717 of the Criminal Code (XLV of 1860), the 301/324/109/148/149 duty to raise the appeal against the defendant No.1 was presented to the head and the head thereby He had a fire arm injury but was largely unavailable in medical evidence. Controversy said that the doctor found the body injury to the body was attributed to the injuries to the accent, accusing Vo 2 of having fired two shots that appeared to be on the victim's right arm, but medical evidence Did not support the ocular account because of the injuries he received. The doctor's mere scratches on the victim's arm that could have been the result of a fall to the ground were not found credible even as the accusation against Defendant No. 3 was not justified by the statement of the prosecutor's witness in this regard. They were presented by the doctor at trial. An independent witness who was never given evidence of the unfavorable character of such an independent character who went to the benefit of the accused, could not be ignored or in the absence of anything to avail this charge. It could not be ruled out to suggest that the observations and theories established by the doctor were based on motives that would otherwise have been the complainant / appellant's argument that the doctor's statements should not be believed. And depending on which case they were dismissed by the trial court, no serious argument was made by the complainant / appellant against the fate of the accused recorded by the trial court. A specific misrepresentation or relevant motion by the Appellate Trial Court best law firm from Kharian lawyer