Find a Lawyer

ARIF HUSSAIN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE

There was no witness to the incident in defining section 302 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Conduct Laws (Enforcement) Act (IX of 1974), section 26, and the name of any person in the FIR as the accused or witness. Not taken According to the trial court in the trial, according to the prosecution, the witness was a crazy person who revealed his age as 1 1/2 years, who said that the witness did not know who committed the murder and who was a liar. Didn't say anything about the culprit. The complainant or the police had succeeded in testifying to the person as fictitious 12/13 days after recording his statement under Section 161, CCPC, who admitted that he had, on the instruction of the police. His blood was stained in blood stained Chi / Sarai and the clothes recovered on the report of the accused did not link him to the commission of the crime as there was no information of the serologist regarding the origin of the blood and the victim was killed. No reports of blood transfusions. Injuries on his fingers by the accused on record also did not link him to murder in the absence of evidence (trial by trial to clear the incident witness's raid. Section 26 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Constitutional Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, was suspected to be illegal, but because it had no authenticity and the prosecution's case was suspicious. , He was not given a trial court remand on the same score. list of supreme court advocates from Dera Ghazi Khan lawyer