Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SARWAR ALIAS SARA versus STATE

Section 7 377 Fines (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (of 1979 VII of 1979), Complainant's conduct in making a complaint about the Commission's valuation of Section 12 evidence, termed the matter extremely suspicious, as the FI. In R, he nominated two people with their details. Although an FIR of parents, caste and address was filed the next day and the complainant had ample time to inquire from his child about the person who committed the crime, but the complainant did Gave an additional statement in which he replaced the two accused with one and two. At the stage of the evidence and the evidence, he also apologized to one of them when he left the current accused alone, in evidence before the court, saying that the accused took his son with an unknown person. The complainant had completely punished the other accused and denied it. In his supplementary statement, he mentioned that another witness of the prosecution was the brother of the complainant and the evidence was contradictory to his changed version and the alleged victim's evidence was not even credible. Neither himself confirmed the witness's statement but the alleged victim's statement was not beyond doubt and it appears that he was carefully touted by the complainant and gave evidence. According to him, the evidence of the prosecution was not credible and the witnesses were not credible. The prosecution's case against the suspect was highly suspected. He was entitled to the benefit of the suspect. Was sentenced by the trial court against the accused female advocates from Haroonabad lawyer