Find a Lawyer

UMAR HAYAT versus THE STATE

Testimony of Section 302 (b) / 392/427/34 Evidence on the record The evidence on the record had sufficiently proved that an FIR was filed immediately, in which case any form of counterfeiting The possibility of dialogue or consultation was abolished and the names of the accused were acquitted. In addition to the eyewitnesses present in the FIR mentioned above, the deceased and the complainant were also natural as the deceased was on election campaign and it was said that the candidate of the campaign was usually his supporters and close relatives. The three witnesses were together, but the three witnesses were examined at length. At the time of the incident, prosecution witnesses could not have been recorded by the defense to suspect their presence on the spot, who repeated the story in every detail in the case, falsely in this case. There was no prior desire or enmity to be involved and even they were presented with no motive to make false accusations of the accused during cross examination. Such witnesses were persistent on material points and their statements did not contradict each other. The ocular account offered by such free and natural witnesses cannot be denied It turned out that the prosecution was not able to prove any motive against them. Not always necessary to prove that sometimes the hearing of the allegations was not sufficient to exclude the ocular account from the accused as they were considered to have a specific role in the case. Was given. And the report of the Franzic Science Laboratory suspect in connection with the evacuation of the deceased under his case. property advocate from Nankana Sahib lawyer