Find a Lawyer

SHAHID AHMAD versus STATE

Section 302/34 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hodg) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 17 (4) Conduct Appreciation of Evidence, robbery, firing and taxi burning All the co-accused sitting in the crowd. ? , It must have taken a long time and it was not possible for the accused to be with sarcastic faces during all this time. The complainant and other witnesses must have seen the fact that the accused in his report told the complainant that Were, by no means, to create the impression that the accused could not be seen nor identified, who was an independent witness, there was no mistake or motive that he was wrongly accused. Can properly capture the complainant and, in the identification parade, identify the accused and the complainant's statements, with confidence, The victims were not affected and their testimony could not be denied, and they were identified in the court, even otherwise it was seen by the number of accused persons and it would not be possible for the complainant and the police. Substituting the suspects with the original offenders identified the contradictions in the complainant's statements and supporting the witnesses, who were important to protect the defendants who were fired by the taxi, Those who were trying to escape after committing the robbery were members of the same party and they He had jointly committed the crime of robbery and was killed during the crime. Of the four innocent, the trial court had already overturned the sentence, tax advocates from Fizagat lawyer