Find a Lawyer

KHALID MEHMOOD versus THE STATE

Section 2302 (b) defined the evidence as the complainant's deceased father-in-law, and the second witness to the prosecution was the WS cousin and the deceased's son, in both cases, not only interfaith relatives, but also the deceased's close relatives and It was found that the accused faced animosity in the case, in which, as 1i, the prosecution's witness admitted in examining that the evidence of such witnesses should have been carefully examined. Do not provide any explanation for their presence at the relevant time. Both the complainant and the prosecution witness were not only interesting witnesses, but also witnesses of the occasion and could not be called natural witnesses and their evidence was reliable. The prosecutor's witness, who was not in compliance with the ocular evidence, confessed that the main gate of the house from which T was recovering was open and that the accused and the families of the accompanying accused were residing there, allegedly recovering. The gun was not in the special possession of the accused in these circumstances, the police officer also admitted. The gun was recovered from an iron box that was open and not locked in the room, in which case, the recovery of the gun was unnecessary and the forensic science laboratory's account could not provide any support to the account reports. The trial court did not have any effect in view of its improvement. The motive section of the story was not justified by the complainant, for purposes of contradictory significance of the ocular testimony. The prosecution had, without any doubt, failed to admit guilt for the accused. family advocate from Blitang lawyer