Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD DIN versus THE STATE

Section 777F, 2 452/34 Constitution Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) confirming the testimony of the complainant in connection with the injury to his person, was fully confirmed by medical evidence. If the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses was excluded, the complainant's testimony, which was proved by the medical evidence, would be beyond reasonable doubt; the accused had made no enmity to make false allegations against the complainant. The witness's testimony cannot be excluded merely on the basis that he was related. My relationship with the complainant would not be sufficient to be an eyewitness to the witness unless the trial court's conviction reads misinformation and misrepresents the evidence of the High Court, in the circumstances. It is legally allowed to turn around. The decision to seek or to be acquitted as bad was perverse and on the basis of which the evidence was misrepresented. No exception can be taken by the High Court in detecting the crime. No merit was found in the plea filed by the complainant for the increase in conviction against the accused and the punishment under Section 452, PPC, for which no substantive evidence was presented. The record is alleged, in the circumstances, that he was acquitted of the crime under section 452, both leave for leave of appeal for PPC appeal, conviction and conviction by the High Court against the accused. Rejected \ r \ n \ r \ n best advocate from Mangla lawyer