Find a Lawyer

GHULAM ABBAS versus M. SADIQ

Appeal against the ocular evidence presented by the Section 417 Explanation Code (XLV of 1860), section 302/34 prosecution testimony, medical evidence was not affirmed, and there is a contradiction between the medical evidence and the oral evidence of the prosecution's witnesses. One of the witnesses was an opportunist. The victim, who was passing through the scene of the incident and the other witness, was a relative of the deceased who died before his death registered hostility to the accused's statements, saying that both witnesses were free and Need for strong co-operation, which is lacking in this case, a female witness was examined in this trial. Twice, first as a prosecution witness and then as a defense witness twice, as a trial court when the prosecution and defense witness stated that there had been unlawful adoption of the procedure in which the law If not, the prosecution failed to prove ocular testimony. If, at the scene of the incident and the other hospital declaration, examined in light of the available evidence on record, it would appear that the ocular testimony contradicted each other in relation to the portion of the casualty's injury to the victim, The defendant's statement was neither endorsed nor supported. Witnesses have also been acquitted that the deceased had pronounced someone dead at the scene of the incident. None of the witnesses disclosed whether the suspect was conscious at the scene of the incident or was unconscious that the evidence of the witness on the question of the deceased's declaration was untrustworthy. C best advocate from Parachinar lawyer