Find a Lawyer

AHMED YAR versus THE STATE

Section 2302 (b) complimented the evidence on which the complainant and the other two eyewitnesses were closely related to each other, and the two complainants were the true brother of one of the accused persons, the prosecution's witnesses had the deceased's maternal uncle, and the third witness the other's witness. Mamma was The witnesses of the two prosecution witnesses were located 2 to 3/2 miles from the scene of the incident. The accused was not connected for the purpose of presence of the accused while the three accused were placed in column number 2 of the challan. Before the trial of the accused, the complaining party had killed five persons and only one accused had been tried. The complainant died before the trial started, the investigating officer had stated before the trial court that During the interrogation, several persons appeared before him and stated that the accused was innocent and the accused was never arrested during the investigation. Because his arrest was postponed by the Investigation Agency, records from the Eating Agency showed that the two victims were of a very disappointing role and were involved in a number of hateful criminal cases, after deliberations and consultations. The IR was filed. No vacancy was recovered from the opinion of the police but it was not bound by the court. Murder cases, but in the weirdest circumstances of the case, the accused's involvement in the present case was suspicious and the accused was sentenced under trial and given the benefit of the doubt, the High Court ordered his release. Was. divorce advocates from Garh Maharaja lawyer