Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ KHAN versus MUHAMMAD AKHLAQ

Section 417 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Sentencing Laws Enforcement Act (IK of 1974), Sections 5, 8 and 9 of the Sentencing Code (XLV of 1860), appeal of the verdict against the accused 279/2011, the trial court suspected it. To the benefit of the. Eyewitnesses who were with the accused as a loader. Given an ocular account, but the trial court did not rely on the testimony that he was an idiot and was unable to explain or understand anything, nothing to record or to believe, except to observe it. of the. The trial court said that the evidence of the witness was faith-based and that the other four witnesses, who were the conductor of the vehicle driven by the accused, also gave a regular account of the incident, but the trial court also denied that. The eyesight is weak, which was not stated in the statement. There are also requests for the presence of two other witnesses to appear with the two witnesses at the time of the incident, when the other two witnesses also linked their statements to the statements of the accused appearing implicitly. There was no enmity with the accused, the trust was impressive and there was no reason for them not to accept the account, the stained clothes were made from the house on the identity of the accused, witnessed by the prosecution witnesses HA. Who completed the investigation and made a clear statement before the court about linking the accused to the crime. The Syed policeman was subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the accused, but no evidence was found. No hostility has been charged and no charge has been made against him famous supreme court advocate from Gakhar Mandi lawyer