Find a Lawyer

MIR MUHAMMAD FARID versus MST. AMREEN

The appeal against the prosecution's witnesses in the prosecution's story, according to section 171717 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 336/337/341/109, but the aforementioned witness had clearly stated that the incident. It was just before his arrival. The scene and one of the accused did not attack the stone in his presence; the other prosecutor's witness did not support the prosecution's version, which dismissed that he and the other witness's prosecution could not intervene because he was away from the scene. The prosecution also admitted that no one else was present at the time of the incident. The fact is that the witness of the injured prosecutor was almost 12 years old while the accused was younger, the crime weapon was not recovered from the scene of the incident. But was reportedly recovered from a makeshift hill. A house with only one room cannot allow such a smart mind to recover and it was not possible for an eight-year-old girl to pick up her nose with a stone and hurt her. The prosecution's testimony did not support the recovery proceedings, and due to land and route disputes between the parties, the animosity was also acknowledged by the prosecution's evidence, vague, artificial, contradictory and self-contradictory, The following was not worthy of any credible court, thus the prosecution's evidence was rightly dismissed, the prosecution The offense was unable to charge home delivery home, the suspect accused in the trial court had extended legal proceedings. The trial court found there was no apparent defect, material malpractice or legal instability. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Dunyapur lawyer