Find a Lawyer

DHOLU versus THE STATE

The Pakistan Penal Code Section 302/34 evidence was the nephew of the deceased victim and if the complainant and the prosecution witness were with the victim at the time of the incident, they should all have resisted the murder of a young relative by the accused. ? The accused and the complainant and the prosecution's witnesses may have been fired by the accused, but to no effect, the complainant did not say in the FIR which of the suspects had fired, in which the deceased prosecutor. Were witnesses. Even the silence in their evidence in this regard, which has raised doubts about their presence on the occasion of the crime, is not credible given that the murder of a person in the presence of his close relatives is not sufficient for the prosecution witnesses. Will not attempt to inflict any injury to. The complainant and the prosecution's witnesses had indicated that they had not witnessed the incident, but they had reached the scene. After the victim was shot and the suspect named him due to enmity with the accused so that a complaint could be lodged and the witness along with the victim allegedly suspected of being an eyewitness to the incident. The statement of the second witness of the prosecution, under the Martyr Report 16 164, contradicts his own evidence in the CCPC court. On the same day, the police also suspected the location of the incident. All the witnesses who were closely related to each other, Had not been able to support the prosecution because of his contradictory statements not out of suspicion against the accused. Because of this, the accused was acquitted of the charge giving the benefit of the doubt. solicitors from Kotli Loharan lawyer