Find a Lawyer

SAIF ULAH ALIAS SAIFU versus THE STATE

Article 302 (b) / 324/392/34 The defendant was arrested after more than three years on the charge of appreciating the evidence and the identity parade was also held after more than three years after the arrest of the accused complainant. And the prosecution's witnesses did not identify the accused head constable. The accused claimed to have been identified, but the evidence did not benefit the prosecutor because he was neither named in the FIR nor shown as an eyewitness in the planning of the site. , But was later introduced to the head constable, but there was no evidence. The only proof of this was that he saw three robbers carrying cash and government firearms that went into his eyes. No cash was recovered from the accused, the head constable's statement alone was not endorsed by any other independent source who was in fact. He did not support the prosecution's case witnessing the incident. Another important witness whose: The suspect robbed the vehicle did not support the prosecution's story. And the other witness who was a taxi driver who came to the taxi did not support the prosecution case in which the sentence was death, the evidence should be obtained from an unforgivable source, but in the present case the prosecution failed to prove its case. ? Apart from any doubts, the accused and the prosecution case was full of doubts, the charges, in the circumstances, were acquitted while extending the benefit of the doubt. law firms from Burewala lawyer