Find a Lawyer

ZULFIQAR versus THE STATE

Article 302 (b) / 324 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The prosecution had, by the statements of three eyewitnesses, established the case beyond any reasonable doubt, one of them was also involved in the incident. He suffered a stab wound. From any significant weakness, but its recovery was confirmed, the firearms expert's positive report and the position taken by the accused in his statement under Section 342, CR PC, his presence at the time of the incident. As stated in the FIR, he did not deny. , But they confessed to the presence of the injured witness on the spot, thus, it was unnecessary to record the delay in filing an FIR under section 161, CR PC and the statement of the injured eye witness and the proportion. They were not particularly blown away by eyewitnesses and the eyewitnesses in particular were natural witnesses, and their testimony was based on faith and self-defense by the accused. y Neither the evidence nor the litigation can be inferred that, when tested on the touchstone of medical evidence, it was found to be ridiculous and inaccurate, no basis for granting leave to appeal was made. , The Supreme Court dismissed the application and refused leave of appeal. advocates from Talagang lawyer