Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUSLIM versus THE STATE

Section 2302 / evidence 34 Evidence Defined The incident occurred at around 1pm in the month of November at midnight, in which no person was named in the FIR and no one was charged in the FIR. The details were not specified because the matter in the FIR was completely different. At the trial, the complainant did not explain the role played by the accused before the magistrate, in which two other eyewitnesses mentioned in the FIR did not support the prosecution's case before the trial court. And the two defendants were acquitted at trial. The same evidence was not recovered from the accused's wrist watch or purse. The identification parade was held after approximately two and a half months of incidents. The rivalry between the complaining party and the accused was proved. No independent communication was available for the complainant's statement. Which was perfect. The complainant's statement could not be relied upon to prove the improvement, so in the trial of the prosecutor there were tents which were full of suspicion and thus the possibility of the accused being lied to due to previous enmity. Could not be denied and the trial court convicted and acquitted the accused. top advocate from Khushab lawyer