Find a Lawyer

NASIR HUSSAIN versus THE STATE

Section 2?2 (b) and 3 353 Ocular Account of Evidence Appraisal did not affect trust Eyewitnesses were unable to observe the characteristics of the suspect at the time of the incident due to darkness and remote plans were drawn on the eye gestures. Were done The witnesses contradicted each other, the location of the incident was suspicious because of the extra-judicial confession evidence allegedly given by the accused, for several reasons the accused confessed to firing at the victim. And was merely sentenced by the trial court. Sharing a joint intention with the principal accused, which was not proven on record on the fact, during questioning under Section 342, CR PC, no question was raised before the accused that he had shared a joint intention with the accused. Who shot at the victim. The FIR was neither charged with a motive, motive or joint intent, nor was that motive set during the trial was acquitted in the circumstances. top advocates from Minchanabad lawyer