Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD JAMIL versus STATE

Section 302 (b) Appreciating Evidence Extra-judicial confession of offenders that was voluntary, truthful, free from any repression and repression, though withdrawn, was not always a sufficient basis for rejecting relevant confession, Until and unless it was proven that it was obtained through coercion, intimidation, coercion or greed, the details of the incident given by the accused in the confessional statement were a difficult situation to prove that the confession was true and Voluntarily one of the prosecution's witnesses expired during the hearing, while the rest are witnesses. Withheld for reasonable reasons, the prosecution did not have to present all the testimonies presented by him in the witness's calendar, alleging that he could inspect in his defense, but he could Failure to take advantage of authority / right cannot be allowed to do so. An FIR was immediately filed in this case, which provided all the necessary details, the prosecutor's witnesses were subjected to lengthy and frustrating Oss exams, but the defense failed to tarnish the credibility of those witnesses. Nor has the defense been able to prove that there was any misconduct for falsely engaging these witnesses in the case in which nothing was excluded from cross-examination. Was. About the prosecution's testimony that could have gone away from the utility of their statement. The Ocular Account states that the witnesses were produced with the help of medical evidence, which proved the fact that the deceased was suffering from two wounds. famous supreme court advocate from Chak Sawara lawyer