Find a Lawyer

KHALIL YOUSAF versus THE STATE

Section 239 34/34 34 Appreciating the evidence The complainant, who was the headmaster of a school and the witness of the prosecutor who was also the teacher of the said school, had absolutely no animosity or unlawful will against the accused. In nature, it can be falsely implicated. Eyewitnesses made permanent statements before the trial court and their statements affected confidence; both witnesses not only identified the accused before the police, but also identified them before the trial court without error. Crowley, another prosecution witness, knew the accused well enough and did not have one. Only the accused was coming to the scene with his accomplices, but at the time of the incident, he also saw it on the spot. The witness also chased the accused and his associates as they fled the scene when the defense failed. Was. Bring anything on the record to discredit the witness ornaments recovered from the suspect's possession during the investigation. The trial complainant identified the matter before the trial court. Another prosecution witness dismissed the suspect and his co-accused about leasing two motorcycles. At the same time, there was no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the contentious statements and the testimony of the suspects as completely contradictory, in the area raised by the accused because of political enmity and party factions. , Was found confusing and unreliable. , Had succeeded in convicting the appeal filed by the accused against his conviction and conviction, he was dismissed under the circumstances. best advocate from Noor kot lawyer