Find a Lawyer

RIASTA ALIAS NANHA versus THE STATE

Pakistan Panel Code Section 302 (a) The value of the evidence was clearly stated by the two eyewitnesses in their statements about the time and circumstances of the case: under which the witnesses were taken by the eye witnesses in their statements. No material contradiction was created. Tutors remain witnesses, and they had enough resources to get accurate information about the incident. In examining eye witnesses, the defense lawyer tried to explain the facts based on the accused's case, but he did not give the witnesses evidence. The evidence failed to produce any serious dent. Their behavior and presence were adequately described on the occasion, which was not justified by the co-accused, in which regard the statements of the eyewitnesses were not taken care of and they were taken advantage of by the suspect, the accused, The man who carried a carbine made a direct shot to the deceased on his chest. The accused fired only one shot and did not repeat the firing from the vehicle. The IV showed very weak recovery evidence. Were not and were prosecuted by the trial court. The eyewitnesses were natural and justified on the spot, the defendant was properly convicted at the trial, but was sentenced under Section 230?. (A), the PPC was not legal and it was converted to one under section 2302 (b), the PPC sentence was a somewhat serious shot with no background. The accused was turned into a prisoner due to the circumstances of his life list of advocates from Lower Dir lawyer