Find a Lawyer

RANA MUHAMMAD AFZAL versus THE STATE

Section 2302/8 308 (1) There was no eyewitness testimony and evidence of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence; the evidence collected by the police was the recovery of the body on occasion; And the evidence of the complainant and the prosecutor. One of the prosecution's witnesses and the complainant was declared a homosexual, a witness, and they did not support the prosecution's evidence to the extent that the extra-judicial confession by the accused was sufficient to stop the police officer's statement beforehand. It was not that the accused had said anything Extra judicial confession There was no reason for the accused to make any additional judicial confession before the police officer because he did not know about it before and the statement made before the police officer He was admissible in evidence even if he accepted the evidence without the extra judicial confession If they were, there was no trial. We were again regular in the prosecution of the accused because of the other witnesses and there was no strong record to link the accused to the commission of the crime. The prosecution failed to prove any reasonable doubt against the accused. , The trial court's decision against the defendant was not lasting. jobs for fresh advocates from Mangal Sada lawyer