Find a Lawyer

JAWAD AYOUB versus MUHAMMAD FARID

Sections 302 and 396 of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (4) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13, evidence in place of the prosecution witnesses, with respect to time Conflict not found A complete agreement was found between the prosecution's testimony regarding the prosecution of the pistol used in the incident, the location of the pistol used in the crime and the recovery of the pistol used in the crime, both in time, place and manner. There was no contradiction in the statements of the relevant prosecution witnesses. The recovery of the other articles was a planned murder. The entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence was available in this case, the prosecution had proved all the links to the circumstantial evidence chain and said that there was a difference between the prosecution, the relationship. do not have. His case against the accused proved beyond any reasonable doubt, the contradictions pointed out to the accused W were very minor and it was very natural that the facts proved by the prosecution were unable to explain anything other than the guilt of the accused, One of the accused, who filed the FIR, was the college watchdog where the incident took place and his duty was to ensure the safety of the college and the deceased professor, but he cheated on the deceased and was a real mischief maker. And he had planned and other co-accused used the pistol in the incident and shot the victim and Both of them were not entitled to any kind of relaxation or else in case of murder, the usual punishment was death sentence and the court, no one when you need a advocate from Hattar lawyer