Find a Lawyer

SHAH ROOM KHAN ALIAS SHERO versus STATE

Section 2? (b) and evidence of the testimony of the complainant and his daughter when he saw the shotgun firing at the victim, he refused or did not suspect because he was the most natural as a prisoner of the house. Were witnesses. The complainant and her daughter did not have statements. According to the question, the Okular account said that natural witnesses would not need any collusion to prove the accused, but medical evidence was still supported. And the recovery of the criminal weapon from the possession of the accused was designated in the FIR and there was no previous rivalry between the parties on the false charge. Or the incident was reported immediately containing all material facts related to the defense of the incident, despite a lengthy interim investigation, which was unable to cancel the eyewitness testimony at any material point, even though it was near The victim was present, but could not be called interested or ini. The eyewitness account of the medical witnesses was supported by medical evidence, according to which the victim's injury was recovered from the fracture in the ocular account. Another important source of fraud would be that the contradiction identified was trivial and not fatal in the prosecution's case. . There was no room for the prosecution's witnesses to reject their testimony with the interlocutor or interstate; their testimony with the deceased could not be grounds for dismissing their testimony as there was no enmity against the witnesses. Who was otherwise convinced of the nature of the prosecution. He was able to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced the accused. immigration advocates email from Mian Chunnu lawyer