Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ALI versus THE STATE

Evidence against the accused in the Pakistan Penal Code Section 365 A / 34 abduction was the complainant's evidence and a witness of the prosecutor who was the complainant's brother, but no witnesses to the complainant's abduction were delayed on record. was not. Relations between the complainant and the accused in the filing of the FIR were strained because the complainant was dismissed by the complainant a few days ago as the driver of the complainant and harsh words were exchanged between the parties and the complainant. And the prosecution's witnesses themselves did not abduct the evidence. There is no evidence that the accused had distributed the money to the witnesses in the presence of witnesses 14 days after the arrest of the accused. The confession was recorded and there was no explanation. Submitted by the prosecution for its delay, H suspected the voluntary confession of the crime, that the statements made under Section 2 made2 had been withdrawn from the guilt by the accused, the confession of the PCP. There was very weak evidence and before it could be believed it needed strong maturity before it could be assumed that the arrest of the accused was found to be suspicious of the ransom money. All pieces of evidence that were themselves defective pieces of evidence cannot be used to confirm a confession, especially when the confession was not properly recorded, and one of the defendants admitted the offense. was done. The oath, which was unthinkable and could not be overlooked, was not justified jobs for fresh advocates from Killa Abdullah lawyer