Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ILYAS versus THE STATE

FIRs were registered immediately after the FIR of Sections 3, 5 and 24 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Conduct Laws (Enforcement) Act 1974, Section 313, and the accused was sent exclusively to his wife's daughter. He was named in the FIR for murder. The 7-year-old suspect, the only eyewitness to the incident, was allegedly accused of killing the victim with ax, the defendant failed to produce evidence of defense, blood stained with the suspect's identity, The court recovered the chapel, the clothes, the ax, the testimony from the room where the accused's clothes were recovered before the defendant's clothes were recovered and the witness testified through his testimony. Who had linked the accused directly to the commission of the crime and the relationship between the accused and him was strained. A chemical examiner's report was set up on which the blood, clay and clay also linked the suspect to the commission of the dispute, saying the only witness who witnessed the minor's daughter was the defendant. His education was possible, he was removed from the age when one could see and may have testified. Being the natural witness and the accused's daughter as well as the victim's daughter, it can be said that she cannot be forced to lie otherwise she was supported by the doctor's report and was a minor. The possibility of avoidance was excluded; the trial court, in the circumstances, correctly concluded that the accused power of attorney advocate Musafir Khana lawyer