Find a Lawyer

KHIZAR HAYAT versus THE STATE

Section 2302 (b) / 34/3 ??? Confession of evidence The motive portion of the story of the prosecution was fully established by the testimony of eyewitnesses, the FIR was filed by the victim's son, whose accused Hostility was maintained, in the present case, that the complainant's statement should be viewed with caution as his conduct was not consistent with natural human behavior during the incident. The question is whether the complainant was present at the scene of the incident, not free of doubt. The prosecution's witness, however, was not related to the complainant and had no enmity against the accused. And his statement about all the material details - at the time of the incident, the manner of the attack and the location of the injury - was consistent with the story as given in the FIR, and such testimony was a natural witness to the incident. Lived a square distance from it. According to the statement of the incident, the prosecution witness disputed the medical evidence which led to the injury, which led to his accusation. According to the description of the wounds in the medical evidence, the evidence of Erson, the prosecution's testimony was further strengthened by the evidence of the recovery of the blood-stained pigments, the area where the prosecution's witness confirmed the memo from the suspect's recovery. Was neither a resident nor unusual in the accused nor was the complaining party related to a police officer who was witnessing the recovery of a dagger from a co-accused who had been examined for a long time, but to confirm this. Nothing was brought on the record to encourage him to be lied to through corruption. Old, or his testimony trust law firms from Mingora lawyer