Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD UZAIR versus STATE

Sections 302, 324 and 427 of the Explosives Act (VII of 1908), FIRs of Sections 3 and 4 were promptly filed, but such fact, by itself, was inspected by independent sources in the Chief of Prosecution. Was not enough to do. The witness, who was a taxi driver, cannot be trusted because he is said to have disappeared after being the Chief of the Examination and did not make himself available for cross examination even though he tried to attend. The evidence of a witness could not be relied upon unless it was cross-examined but in the present case, the witness was not examined. The point of being brought by the accused in the police custody. Evidence of evidence where nothing was safe was also unacceptable in law because it was already known to the police that e FIR lost its sanctity. Due to the virtual testimony of the key witness, who did not appear to examine it, the ocular testimony presented by the interesting witnesses was not valid. All the prosecution case was robbed of any independent source. Weaknesses, impossibilities, weaknesses and materiality. The contradiction was contradictory and the whole matter was filled with suspicion, the mystery was reduced and no evidence was linking the accused to the commission of the crime. The prosecution has failed to prove its case. In any reasonable doubt, it was a matter of clear faith that the accused was acquitted and ordered to be released. solicitors from Gujranwala lawyer