Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IMRAN versus THE STATE

Section 10 (3) Testimony of Evidence Although both eyewitnesses were the father and uncle of the victim, they had no enmity with the accused in making false allegations in such a case that the reasoning did not occur in this case. Where the prosecution said. Withdrew because it had come to the record in the investigation that the incident shop was owned by the accused and the victim was found with a sewer and blood stains, which took about six to six hours to file an FIR. Was delayed, could not happen at all. End the prosecution case because the police occ was 16 km away from the scene of the incident and no vehicle was available at the relevant time. The doctor stated that the accused's act was brutal which led to the chemicals related to the victim's shower. Examiner was told about. Positively charged, who was examined, he was found to have a strong probation for sexual intercourse; in the circumstances, he had proved his case against the accused, an appeal against a shadow of a trial court's decision under which The accused was convicted and sentenced, dismissed best advocate from Sidhnoti lawyer