Find a Lawyer

GHULAM WARIS versus THE STATE

Section 302 (a) / 324 Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood Ordinance (VII of 1979), Section 10 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6 (c) and 7 (ii)) The statement, which claimed to have been an eyewitness to the incident, showed that there were four suspects, but it was not known who was responsible for the murder of the victim, and on that occasion, the prosecutor was injured on the fire. In the circumstances when the witness was received, it may be that in the face of the incident it is not called witness that the prosecution tried to link the accused to the crime of murder by having a pistol recovered on the suspect's identity, But on the empty pile of any weapons of the incident, the import was also kept safe from the location of the consultant. According to the trial court, the accused had convicted the accused in the murder of the deceased, while it was found that the accused had committed guilt with the complainant, it was also found that the accused had committed the murder. What is also can be widely blamed for this and it could not have been merely speculative. In order to prove the charges against the accused under Section 302 (a), PPC, the evidence required under Section 304, PPC should be headed, but the accused under the trial will be tried and convicted. That was not the case. 302 (a), the PPC was not justified without any strong, concrete and credible evidence and the prosecution witness's testimony was found to be anomalous and stated that in its entire statement the witness online advocate from Mithi lawyer