Find a Lawyer

SHAUKAT ALI versus THE STATE

The testimony of section 302 evidence was not in accordance with the medical evidence ocular evidence that both witnesses, although not the accused, were angry with him because he had earlier allowed the deceased to be with him at the age of 17. Had taken to live with me. The possibility of the prosecution's version of the complainant and other witnesses who were the father and uncle of the deceased, respectively, cannot be excluded. Neither the officer nor any of the witnesses were testified except that the two real brothers who were allegedly witnesses did not receive anything from the accused to verify the temporary account which was used to confirm the witnesses' statements. Maybe. It appears that after contradicting and thoroughly investigating the FIR, contradictions on the material points of the dispute were truly contested and an eyewitness was witness to the occasion and his presence at the time of the incident. Failure to present a plausible explanation of why, when present, the mere evidence alone was not sufficient to link the accused to the crime. The witness was suspicious of the witnesses on the occasion until it was proved by other circumstances that the prosecution had failed to bring the accused beyond the shadows of any kind, giving the accused the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted of the charge. And he was punished. On one hand property advocate from Dir lawyer