Find a Lawyer

ASIF KHAN versus STATE

The Section 417 Determination Code (XLV of 1860), the prosecution's trial against the confession of section 302 evidence was postponed to the testimony of three eyewitnesses, two of the aforesaid witnesses, who are closely related to the deceased, revealed. That when they arrived at the scene of the incident, they found that one of the accused was the victim of the fireworks wounds and the other was also present at the scene of the incident, the names of both witnesses, He was not mentioned in the FIR, he arrived at his place immediately after hearing the news of his father's murder. , But he did not find that both witnesses at the scene of the incident had already arrived at the scene of the incident, but they also did not find that both witnesses there had been asked to record their statement. Both were not witnesses. The evidence at the scene at the time of the incident stated that witnesses were recorded only 10 days after the incident, but the prosecutor offered no explanation. The third witness claimed that he saw the deceased and a man fighting among themselves and that the man fired at the victim and said that the man fled. The third witness revealed that the culprit was responsible for the prosecution It was difficult to identify the offender through a witness test, but the investigating officer did not do so, so the witness identified the accused in court and said that the accused was identified 10 months after the incident. The evidence of the third witness in connection with the identification of the accused in the same court cannot be safely relied upon by the trial court. According to the hail hailed as evidence top advocates from Chowk Maitla lawyer