Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus TAHIR ALIAS BILLOO

Section 302 (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), against the rejection of the evidence, the appellant prosecuted his case based on ocular evidence. Recovery of contradictory articles; medical evidence presented by defense witnesses, circumstantial evidence and motive evidence were not sufficient to cross the credibility and reliability of the ocular witness, as well as evidence of the circumstances presented by the prosecution. The testimony and the medical evidence presented by the doctor also gave full support. The prosecution's witness also strongly supported the version of the prosecution's witnesses, despite the positive report from the Franz Science Laboratory on the pistol and the emptying of the scene, since the victim's skull-fired brass had been recovered. The location of the incident, fired from a pistol, was taken over by the police session judge, however, the recoveries were left completely on the hypertensive field, without inspecting whether the defense ever recovered these articles. I was not accused of manipulation, so only the 10 days delay in sending Rico to the Franz Science Laboratory articles would not be fatal, given the strange facts and circumstances of the case, which came out of the mouth of the eyewitness. Along with the victim, the accused had full knowledge of the joint business. If his statement was deemed to be correct in the way that the incident took place inside the accused's home, then it should be accepted to prove the purpose so that the courts also take into account the overall effect of the prosecution case. ? To know if a crime has been committed and until the contradictions, contradictions, etc. have entered into the internal value of the evidence of the prosecution. female advocates from Patika lawyer