Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SAFDAR versus STATE

The testimony of the eyewitnesses was not entirely credible in the definition of Section 2 (2 (b) evidence, which has already been denied by the trial court post-mortem report that the victim suffered 10 injuries). Three wounds have been specifically attributed to the victim's forehead. The FIR was alleged to have caused the fireworks, which contradicted the medical evidence, mentioning three wounds from the firearms attributed to the accused involved in the case. Was not done in the FIR, which clearly stated that the complainant and the witnesses were not present at the time of the incident, otherwise Such disputes cannot arise in the statements, because the accused's case has been acquitted only because the witnesses made permanent statements related to the injury, which was on his left knee. Improvements made by the prosecution witnesses, this could not have been worse, given the fact that they had prepared the suspect's true form as well as verbal or circumstantial evidence to the ocular account. The allegations of pistol retrieval from the accused have not been proved as there is no vacancy on the spot. And only report. The forensic science laboratory that the weapon recovered from the suspect was in working condition was not enough to say that the weapon was used in the incident. The four suspects were declared a firearm injury with the same type of weapon. It could not be said, in these circumstances, to assure that the injury caused both of them to testify during the presence of witnesses. divorce advocates from Jalozai lawyer