Find a Lawyer

GHAFOOR KHAN versus MST. GULAB ZARI

The definition of evidence in sections 302 (b), 324, 148 and 149 of this complaint, which was presented as a single-eyed witness, did not respond because of which its presence occurred. , The most unlikely complainant was a witness to the occasion and no independent mention of his testimony was on record, the complaining woman was not fully capable of justifying her presence at the scene of the incident that the whole case was in doubt. Was full, mysteriously reduced and there is no evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime. The trial court, on the sole testimony of the complainant, had tried to violate the law and the settled principles of justice by convicting the accused on the capital charge, which was not sufficient to render the accused guilty of the death penalty. The prosecutor was obliged to prove his case. No weakness can be found in giving the accused the benefit of the doubt; for a person convicted of capital, the evidence must be of a high quality prosecutor, well-meaning, reliable and integrated for the purpose of confession. It was necessary to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt by bringing evidence, the medical evidence contradicting the ocular account could not be used as a supporter of ocular evidence and ocular evidence which was not confirmed. Through medical evidence, the trial court erred in obtaining the motive portion of the prosecutor's story as a contentious part of the ocular testimony because it was always intended to be a dual weapon, against which no other evidence was lacking. In his presence, the accused was absconding. Considering the accused sufficient to maintain the conviction of the individual Pakistan, top advocate family court from Nowshera Cantt lawyer