Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ALIAS NAJI versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 guarantees, the complainant's grant, in the present case, never claimed to be the eyewitness to the alleged incident and instead filed an FIR. R had nominated two witnesses. The two named accused, who allegedly saw two men committing the murder of the complainant's brother, were found innocent by the police in the investigation, and as a result, the case file was closed after the investigation was closed. Was attached to 23 2001 occurred in 2001 and more than four years after the incident, the complainant had made a supplementary statement to the Investigation Officer on 23 6 2005 that by this time it had come to know that it was someone else. The person was (petitioner), in fact, who committed the murder of his brother whose murder was witnessed by two witnesses (newly introduced) the brother of the deceased victim and the second witness was the victim's son and the complainant's son. In this way, closely-eyed witnesses remained silent for more than four years and came forward to involve the accused / applicant. The murder was first recorded on 24th 2005 in 2005 under its statement under Section 161, CCPC, that the accused / applicant had no motive for allegedly committing the murder and was recovered in this case. There was nothing available in the record to attach the bricks. Along with the alleged crime or petitioner challan, the petitioner was now before the trial court and was subjected to a judicial lockup, the High Court observed, in the circumstances of the case, that the prosecution provoked a breach of the branch. list of advocates from Nooriabad lawyer