Find a Lawyer

REHMAT ULLAH versus STATE

Sections 302 (b), 452 and 109 of the Conan testimony (10 of 1984), Article 39, appreciating the evidence, acquitted the co-accused on the ground that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving him, but the accused. Was sentenced based on this purpose. The incident, allegedly related to the co-accused, was a blind murder committed in the dark hours of the night and an FIR was registered by the complainant without the person's name as the accused was identified on the occasion of the recovery. But the allegations of confession by the police before the two investigating officers on charges of physically contradicting each other, cannot be relied upon nor can they be considered unacceptable under Article 39 of the Constitutional Evidence. , 1984 The statement of the Chief Complainant also examined in connection with the alleged confession of the accused is contradictory, Yamani improvements and complete. Lack of settlement from any independent source The prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material points and contradicted the time and place of the alleged confession, which lacked even the details as required by the law, witnesses, complaint The defendant's statement did not disclose, in addition to the other contradictions, the date, time, place, purpose and details. The incident, which made the prosecutor's case extremely suspicious, did not support the evidence in any way, the prosecutor said. The statements of witnesses stated contradictions, alleged extra-judicial confession, and the absence of independent evidence. In view of this, his sentence was considered to be extremely unsafe. The accused in the murder, especially if the prosecution is beyond any doubt best advocate from Khanewal lawyer