Find a Lawyer

MUMTAZ versus STATE

Section 2 evidence2 The definition of evidence contradicts not only between the FIR and the complainant's submission, but also between the complainant and the other witness being the village of the complaining party and the co-accused of the accused, why it is unknown. The name of the prosecutor, who was not named in the FIR, testified that he also went to the tube well with the complainant, which was contrary to the complainant's statement because according to him, the prosecution's testimony was directed towards the tube well. Running said that the contradictions were not explained by the prosecution, who had taken action against him. The prosecution's accomplices were acquitted on suspicion on the basis that because they knew the prosecution's witnesses, their identity could not be weighed before the relevant magistrate, but the accused was convicted on the same evidence. 10 days after the arrest, the accused was charged with a case that was not credible in facts and circumstances, the benefit of the doubt was given in those circumstances and the trial and the sentence against the accused were set aside by the trial court. And he was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt. law websites from Mandi Bahauddin lawyer