Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus THE STATE

Sections 2302 (b), 565, 6 31 (and 7 337 F / I) 34 Definitions of evidence were immediately filed with the FIR and at the time of the incident by eyewitnesses, a specific character was identified. The indictment was attributed to one of the defendants. The prosecution witness, who presented the account in detail, faced a cross-examination examination, but said the investigation could not prove that the prosecution's witnesses were the defendants. The statements of the prosecution's witnesses were the same on all the material. Minor contradictions were bound to happen over time and the only relationship was the rejection of a witness's testimony. Was not enough to make the ocular account presented by the prosecution's two witnesses fully harmonized with the medical evidence and even their statements made full confidence - even if it was established that the accused persons He did not come to the point that he was light in killing the verdict, and the attack was a routine battle against him in which fists and kicking were used, and in the facts and circumstances of the case against the accused, section 302 ( B), punishment and sentence could not be granted under PPC. Nevertheless, the victim died from the accusations that led to his death. The accused was supposed to be attributed to a specific role and should be sentenced under Section 316, PPC, while the other two accused, under Section 337F (II), had given their role to the PPC. Keeping in mind They were convicted and sentenced under Section 2302 (b), the PPC was changed by the trial court to Section 161616, PPC and the accused will be designated as a special character. ask a advocate free from Musakhel lawyer