Find a Lawyer

SHUJA-UR-REHMAN versus THE STATE

Sections 302/34 of the Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 17 (4) Convention of Martyrs (10 of 1984), Articles 37, 91, 117 and 119 of the Criminal Code (V9 1898), Section 103 According to the testimonial evidence, the murder was found and the incident was found to be missing when the complainant found that some checks were broken from the checkbook recovered from the victim's house and found that a check inquiry into the money was disclosed. That the accused did not receive any money for any money, nor was he entitled to receive it, therefore, the suspect became suspicious and inquired about the accused and investigated. As a result, it was revealed that the accused had a suspected role and he also had relations with notorious persons, so after inquiring after his arrest, the police reported the matter and as a result The other accused were also involved in the crime. The original signatures were found on the check and it is on record that the cashier himself provided the money to the accused after being satisfied that the person holding the check was a real person. After holding a photostat copy of the National Identity Card record and a portion of the money it received, it was recovered from the possession of the other accused and two of them also confessed to their crime, therefore, the trial court concluded that The prosecution's trial court further concluded that because the confessional statements, voluntary and circumstantial evidence in the case, as well as the recovery of the weapons of crime and other articles proved to be very stringent, therefore, the accused were in fact guilty. Complainant (brother of the deceased) or some other bribe of the deceased immigration advocates contact from Gojra lawyer