Find a Lawyer

HASHMAT ULLAH versus THE STATE

Section 302 (b) / 34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), after examining the evidence, filed an FIR stating all the incidents in the day in which both the accused were absconding. The two suspects were arrested and detained not long after the incident took place. One of them was found to have an ammunition attached to live cartridges while the other was arrested with felony weapons. The deceased's post-mortem revealed that he had six injuries, with a large number of wounds, and that his eyelashes were formed in the material details. Successfully established his presence at the scene of the incident, although a witness is the brother of the deceased, but his testimony cannot be excluded only because of his relationship, otherwise it creates trust. The injuries attributed to the deceased were specifically attributed to the suspect. And he made his presence on the defensive despite a lengthy inspection, but failed to steal his testimony. The other witness was a shopkeeper in the witness area and was a completely independent witness and there was no enmity or misconduct to involve the accused persons and the defense party failed to believe in the full version of the ocular version of the above witness. Was according to the impressive medical evidence. It was too much to expect the witnesses to dismiss the molecular version with such precision as mathematics in such a traumatic state that the accused had come to the deathly armed spot on a motorcycle. Deadly savagery in broad daylight in the presence of weapons and witnesses with intent to kill the victim top civil advocates from Killa Saifullah lawyer