Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus THE STATE

Section 2 (2 (c) / evidence 34) was accused of defining evidence based on its statement filed under section 2342; the CCPC and the prosecution's version were completely rejected because it too The case was found in the middle of a very cold night, and in the month of November, both the victim (male and female) were told by the suspect's inquest that the bodies of the two victims were lying on a bed and a casket ( The prosecution's witnesses, who were the father and the cousin of the victim, did not appeal the arguments in the case while the accused appeared to be natural. Both the prosecution's witnesses stated that the accompanying accused were not only present at the time of the incident, but that the accused was not challenged by the state or the complainant as the two accused were injured. The final position was obtained if the evidence of the eyewitness testimony was proved to be false, or under suspicion in relation to the acquittal partner, it was necessary for the court to provide additional stringent conditions in the nature of the disputed testimony against the accused. Evidence related to the same should be looked into for the testimony of those witnesses whose evidence was tried Was not treated with respect. The acquittal trial court correctly referred to the blood clots in Sriner No. 3 in column 24 of the Inquest report, and in ordinary circumstances it was also taken into custody. When the investigating officer visited the scene, the defendant prayed only for the reduction of the sentence and the delivery of the compensation, the trial court rightly dismissed the prosecution's case. best advocate from Chak Sheza lawyer