Find a Lawyer

JAHANGIR versus THE STATE

Articles 3 and 5 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Articles 147, 148, 149 and 109 of the prosecution witnesses were related to the deceased, but nothing was recorded to show enmity between the witnesses and the accused. After the deposition of the evidence of a witness, the eyewitnesses provided a detailed description of where the incident took place, it seemed that the prosecution's case was acknowledged during cross-examination by the defense, and even in the presence of witnesses. It was also admitted that the blood-stained clay was in his possession. Police were also located at the scene and 12 bore guns were empty and nothing was on record that the incident was not the same as the prosecution alleged that the prosecution for the confiscation of weapons. The two witnesses did a lengthy investigation, but the defense failed to recover anything and obtain anything conducive to the Investigator's accused martial witnesses, the NG officer successfully proved that the defendant had a prosecution version Weapons of crime were reportedly recovered, the other suspect was not denied, but He said the suspects had been given the benefit of the doubt because there was no evidence to corroborate the witnesses. The trial court, available on the record, did not, in these circumstances, commit any wrongdoing or illegal act while acquitting other suspects with the benefit of the doubt, the motive behind the incident being the mother of the accused and the mother of the victim. There was a land dispute, and he wrote letters and requests to the Inspector General. of the female advocates from Mandi Bahauddin lawyer