Find a Lawyer

MASTER MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus THE STATE

Article 15 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, A XVII, R4 Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), the record of testimony of section 341 evidence is supported, in support of the statement in accordance with R4. XVII of the Supreme Court Rules of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was not required to be attached to the memorandum of appeal, two women who, according to the injured witness, did not present the incident as a witness nor did the prosecution witnesses Was tested. At the trial, the hearing narrated another story narrated by the injured witness. Ocular testimony was not only unacceptable in the evidence, but it also led to material improvements; how this happened, was a question that could not be settled in light of the evidence. Under the circumstances, the accused was acquitted under section 341, PPC, however, it was proved on the record that the victim was injured on the day of the incident and all persons had alleged that the accused was still behind the incident. He was brought home from his home and started threatening the victim with serious consequences, under which the accused were convicted under Section 15, AJK and the Islamic Sanctions Law Enforcement Act 1974, but His conviction was reduced to Rs. 40,000, which was directed to pay the injured witness. pakistani advocates Kachhi/Bolan lawyer