Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus THE STATE

Clauses 2302/3244 / 7F7D / 77FF / ?88 / ?99 were the names of the accused and the characters they mentioned at the time of the incident, the FIR was immediately filed and the accused in this case were wrong. There was no identification question, who had no complaints. The trial supported the prosecution's case of rioting, stirring up false accusations against the accused. Medical evidence was confirmed by ocular evidence, the two accused, equipped with 222 rifles, were fired at the time of the incident and the main accused was involved in 16 cases and the motive of the incident was proved by the prosecution. And his co-accused, who were armed with 222 rifles, had a joint intention to commit the murder. The main suspect could not prove that he was a minor at the time of the incident and that there was no shortage of favor. The main accused, who sentenced him to lesser conviction, said that the accused had shot the deceased severely, the trial court had sentenced him. The conviction and punishment of his accomplices, who had a joint intention with the accused and also injured the trial witness, were retained, accusing the other co-accused only of ineffective firing. Had gone and had no intention of joining hands with the accused. The co-accused was able to set up tents in the prosecution case, he was acquitted while extending the benefit of the doubt. advocate for immigration from Pir Mahal lawyer