Find a Lawyer

MUZZAMIL HUSSAIN SHAH ALIAS BILLU SHAH versus THE STATE

Section 302/459/324/337 F (ii) Judicial Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Section 12 (a) The value of the evidence was not challenged by the defense of the incident and location of the incident, injured. The presence of eye witnesses cannot be doubted on the site because they were natural witnesses, prisoners of the same house where the victim lived, the wounds on the bodies of the eyewitnesses were not self-inflicted, and they were falsely implicated by the accused. There was no enmity with the medical evidence. Ocular evidence was fully supported by the evidence. Their witnesses were never presented to the police and their statements were never recorded. The defense evidence was completely absurd and was not supported by any evidence. As the 16/17 year trial court had upheld the appellate court's decision while recording its statement under section 342 CCPC. Adjudicated by the trial court when the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 was enforced, the accused was not 18 years of age at the time of commission of the crime, as the appeal hearing continued, the accused was not executed. Could go Section 12 (a), the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 High Court changed the death sentence to life imprisonment but retained the amount of compensation Pakistan, top advocate family court from Feroz Walla lawyer