Find a Lawyer

KAMRAN SHAHZAD versus THE STATE

In section 10 (3), the definition of evidence is based primarily on the complainant / complainant girl and her mother claiming to be an eyewitness to the case, but their statements constitute such a crime. The confidence required to maintain the sentence was not encouraged. The disgusting nature says that one of the contradictions that appeared in the victim's mother's statement about the victim's shalwar was not mentioned in the FIR, which recorded a considerable delay. She did not go, nor did she mention it to the trial court, but her mother mentioned that upon witnessing the witnesses, the accused also picked up his shalwar and the victim's shawl and escaped. So much was the fact that the victim could never forget to mention Shalwar himself, because the victim's mother had never been recovered as the prosecution's witness was intermittently examined. There were statements where more than half of the differences were highlighted in clear contradictions, so it would not be safe to maintain the conviction or punishment of the perpetrators on such serious charges. The state councilor was also unable to defend the trial court's decision, which examined the Lady Doctor, who found no signs of violence anywhere on the body of the affected Lady Doctor. It was discovered that the victim's hem was torn and told the health lady doctor that the inspector / victim was a habitual woman while the victim was not married at the time of the medical examination, failing to prove the accused. Was punished and sentenced against the accused. Trial solicitors from Mari Indus lawyer