Find a Lawyer

MALIK SUHAIL versus THE STATE

The testimony of the prosecution witnesses contradicts the testimony of section 302 (b) evidence and did not witness the incident The FIR of the deceased FIR was immediately filed, but the FIR was filed by the offenders. The names were not mentioned, but they were arrested during the interrogation and they were later identified in the parade by a single eyewitness who was the wife of the victim and the mother of the other department. The eyewitness said that he had also seen the accused on the day of the incident, as well as the day before he came to collect the money from her husband. He said that on the day of the incident, it was alleged that people had to stop anyone from identifying their weapons and the funds were collected due to the murder, which was supported by the nature of the said witness. That identity parade was flawed. , Was withheld because no such objection was raised by the defense before the magistrate's witness was identified in the court of the accused and such identification was of the utmost importance, which was referred to in Sec. 161, CR P.C. Although the statement of other witnesses was not recorded on the day of the incident and its statement under Section 1, Section CCP was isolated by three weeks, but the severity of the incident was significant. For a long time, it has to be considered whether there is any dispute with the culprits. Or, before anything that happened to his witness had no reason to falsely implicate the accused, ESS did not identify the role of each of the perpetrators during the identification parade. Why didn't I have the power? jobs for advocates from Mohmand lawyer