Find a Lawyer

SHAHBAZ MASIH versus THE STATE

Section 2302/4 364/392/3 / Testimony / evidence App Testimonial testimony A prosecutor's witness said he had last seen the victim in the companion's courtyard at the taxi stand where the accused had taken the deceased's car. And then the witnesses of the other two prosecutors also claimed that they were last seen according to the victim's witness, who had previously identified the deceased during the parade of identification of the deceased in the company of the accused. , But the other two witnesses of the prosecution were not identified by the accused, the statement of the first witness cannot be considered as evidence for the last time. Two prosecution witnesses contacted the accused in connection with the murder of the accused, who claimed that the defendants had confessed to their crime before that they were not authorized persons, otherwise accusing them of material misconduct. In connection with the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused, two witnesses also raised serious doubts about the evidence. The extra-judicial confession that the accused, Rico, allegedly confessed to, was also suspected in the car seized by the accused because no one from the area was involved in the recovery process, which is a clear violation of section 103. , CCPC prosecution cannot rely on the statement of the witness who claims that he has identified the body. The deceased was done almost one year after the post-mortem examination took place when the body was in the advanced stages of decomposition and even in the eyes of the post-mortem examiner, it was not possible to identify the body. Identity is not possible, suspected of failing to establish a case against the recovery accused online advocate from Jalal Pur Jatan lawyer