Find a Lawyer

MEHBOOB versus STATE

The complainant, who was the father of his accused in the Section 302 testimony, stated in his statement that he did not see the person who opened fire on the deceased and that the complainant was declared admissible to the two witnesses. It was pronounced that they saw the accused committing the murder of both. The witnesses have disputed the authenticity of their statement under Section 164, CRPC, through Mukhtarkar, two other prosecution witnesses who were gun recovery advisers and arrested the accused, did not support the prosecution's story. And he was deposed in court that the recovery of the accused had never had any effect on his presence, the trial court's case was dependent on the witnesses against whom the trial was based on witnesses. , And the fact that such a situation had to depend. Dangerous Examples Medical Evidence Lies Entirely The Occupation Story There is no explanation given of the story of the accusation when the victim received five wounds to the man when he was shot in front of the medical evidence by the prosecution. There was only one bullet that the trial court believed, he was not affected by the trust which caused him to be injured. The complainant would not in any way cause the accused to be punished because the complainant had not argued that he was not present or had refused to fire the gun, but in his statement he Said he could not identify the person who fired. The defendant and the trial court apparently erred in asserting that the record was false. Pakistan, top advocate family court from Domeli lawyer