Find a Lawyer

QAISAR SHAH versus ABDUL KARIM

The clauses 2 302, re Initial Initial and 319 blind 319 were initially FIR blind which did not contain any accused name and in the supplementary statement of the complainant the accused was charged with the crime. The trial court did not define the prosecution's evidence in its legal and factual context. The accused's involvement in the trial by the complainant at the stage was a manifestation of his imagination and it was difficult to believe that the alleged close relatives of the alleged victim were present, witnessing the incident would come out and 7 Witnesses will claim to be witnesses after 8/8. There was absolutely no evidence available on the day of the massacre or the definitive conclusion of the trial, the trial court acted on the allegations, and its findings regarding the culpability of the accused were contrary to the material on record. The witness was allegedly denied any direct evidence was presented by the prosecution. En It was satisfactorily proven that despite the fact that the Ocular testimony did not affect confidence or was of intrinsic significance, the prosecution had to prove Could not be used to support the same evidence, came from interested, biased and relevant witnesses who did not corroborate by other evidence, wrong judgment and judgment based on assessment. The evidence, which was full of impossibilities and instability, had no independent grip on the unforgivable role in the case. The lawsuit brought against the accused was the base of any credible foundation and even proven list of advocates from Pak Pattan Sharif lawyer