Find a Lawyer

ZAFAR versus STATE

The testimony of Section 2 30b (b) of the evidence was stated by the police about 6 hours after the incident when the distance between the incident and the police station was 1 // 2 miles. No one was named in the FIR, I did not mention any light sources and no identification parade was held in this case the three accused who had distorted their faces, but in the implicit statement, The complainant was referred to the four accused by their names, when he was examined, he had committed dishonesty and suffered. In her first statement, the complainant admitted in cross-examination that she had been on the scene with other prosecution witnesses for 4/5 hours after the incident, but still did not name the accused in her complaint. Accordingly, the error in the circumstances was an unexpected incident and the presence of eyewitnesses at the time of the incident was extremely suspicious. In the form of four-eyed witnesses, an account was found, then additional judicial confession or tracker application In the circumstances, the existence of an ocular account was not of the nature of which the accused was punished. This can be found The extra-judicial confession that was not admissible in evidence was given between the injury and the death and the period between death and post-mortem by the doctor who performed the post-mortem of the deceased, the prosecution's case revealed. The vacancies of the crime were seized on the spot but two recovery memos of each crime were vacated. The two accused were eventually acquitted by the trial court. law firms from Dera Nawab Sahib lawyer