Find a Lawyer

SIKANDER HAYAT versus THE STATE

The Pakistan Penal Code Section 302 (b) / 394/2011/404 definition of evidence was recovered two months after the deceased was taken into custody by an accused who wanted to buy the deceased motorcycle. He was last seen with the witness of the witness, nor had he filed any report in the police station for the recovery of his missing brother for a long period of two months nor was there any constitution to register a case against the culprits. Referred to the High Court by Application. In this connection, the victim's brother did not submit any request to a senior police officer, even in this case the FIR was filed by a stranger two months later, but not really, the victim's brother had filed the complaint. The incident ruined the prosecutor's story, all of the prosecution's witnesses. The deceased is closely related and no independent witness was presented by the prosecution. The deceased's body was not recovered on the suspect's identification. The testimony of the extra-judicial confession made by the accused appears to be a highly unnatural registration book. That the identity card which was allegedly recovered from the accused was placed on it, in his statement under Section 161, the victim's real brother, the PC did not mention the recovery of the silver ring and even the state's lawyer Not supported by litigation, the case was full of doubts and the benefit of the doubt was always the accused Did not have as a grace, but as a valid benefit giving the suspect's benefit the benefit of the doubt: the trial court was set aside and the accused was ordered released. divorce advocates from Kundina lawyer