Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ versus THE STATE

The testimony of the section 302/34 in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the FIR present statement contradicted the matter the next day when the police station was only 10 km away from the incident. The witness was a resident of another village 4 km away from the incident while another person was the sisters of the witnesses The behavior of these witnesses was unnatural as they kept quiet till the FIR registration and Didn't even try to report. The witnesses of the deceased Syed's witnesses were witnesses and their evidence was completely untrue. The complainant did not mention the names of the accused and the four witnesses in the FIR and the statements of the prosecution witnesses contradicted the medical evidence. Was gone and no crime was taken from him. The hiding place and recovery from the accused also proved to be the same plant as the CH scammed ocular account, even when the account of the accused was disbelieved, even if the status quo is certain, the recovery case could not be carried forward. The prosecution's duty is to prove its case and the defense's weakness could not strengthen the prosecution's case, the prosecution had to stand on it. Where maximum punishment can be imposed or sustained in your legs should be from inaccessible sources which should have intrinsic value, which was not available in this case because both eyewitnesses were not present on the spot, Was introduced as an eyewitness during the inquiry. Without a doubt, he had failed to prove his case against the accused. Sue best advocate from Qambar Shahdatkot lawyer