Find a Lawyer

NASIR ALI AND OTHERS versus SAJJAD HUSSAIN

Sections 777, 8 338A (I), Constitution 452 and Constitution 34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) were charged with extraordinary testimony, delay in contradicting the evidence of ocular account and contradicting the medical evidence. That he had entered the complainant's house. It was alleged that during the incident, the complainant's wife was also beaten up by the accused which resulted in abortion / abortion and an FIR was registered about a month after the alleged incident and There were conflicts with the account. The Medical Report Trial Court only convicted the accused under Section 337, PPC and sentenced the High Court to 2 years imprisonment, allowed appeal and acquitted the accused, under the use of jurisdiction over the incident. Earlier civil litigation between the parties was ongoing, therefore, the eyewitnesses were interested and were hostile towards the accused. Determination of facts against the complainant after proper appreciation of the evidence with the ocular testimony in direct dispute, the medical And in the event of a confrontation between the evidence, medical evidence should be preferred. The injured could not be contacted because their statements were not in accordance with the medical evidence. Such a finding was considered or considered by the High Court after re-examination of the four witnesses and the medical evidence, Article 185 (3). The evidence cannot be appreciated using force under. ) The Constitution, unless the High Court has committed any mistake or discretion while reviewing the evidence on record. law firms from Tando Allahyar lawyer