Find a Lawyer

MST. ZOHRA BIBI versus STATE

The accused accused was the husband of one of the co-accused accused and the father of the other two co-accused, two of whom were still in the accused and were convicted. , If any, was between the accused and did not say the culprit and the other co-accused, both witnesses were related to the deceased. In addition, they asked the victim to come out of his office, with no co-accused being armed. At any given time, he never argued with the deceased at the relevant time, and he never knew that the enraged person had a pistol that could not be declared a co-accused and was said to be a co-accused. If they have any intentions, they are also confident of the alleged perpetrator. It is of this nature that they would have come to arms with no weapons, no evidence was available to ascertain whether a common motive or alleged crime was going forward. According to professional planning or default planning, if an error is found in the evidence, the accused shall be entitled to take advantage of the same litigation to prove that the accused was guilty and if the crime was committed at home. The evidence was not sufficient to convey. The accused, there was no other option, but the culprit declared for acquittal was in large numbers and the other accused had already tried and appealed for two years, the real brother, the real mother and the father of the main accused. Because of this, the possibility of the accused being falsely accused, who was at large, cannot be ruled out. All injuries were reported to the victim patent advocate from Ghuzdar lawyer