Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD BOSTAN versus STATE

The testimonies of Articles 302 (b), 148 and 149 relate to both witnesses being deceased and there was a background of enmity between the parties, no independent witness to prove the story established by the prosecution. Even the complainant, who was charged in the FIR. That he had gone to the village concerned with others to attend the funeral of a deceased person, could not give the exact name of the deceased person, before the trial court, at whose funeral there were other material contradictions. Were also found. The statements of the prosecution's two witnesses differ greatly from the site's plans, one prepared by the investigating officer on his first visit to the scene of the incident and the other by the draftsman who pointed to the witnesses' testimony. Has also raised doubts about the reality of The prosecution's witnesses were presented before the trial court that they had seen all the suspects in Police Station ys The recovery of the pieces of guns after the incident did not prove that a recovery witness, who was the defendant's real The uncle was, did not say a word about the recovery of the pieces of the butt, but was abandoned by another witness. Prosecutor Gunn was recovered at the scene of one of the suspects, though he was received at the firearms specialist's office, while a firearm specialist was seized by police at the scene of the incident. Were not sent to. And the hatchet with the police recovered on the suspect's identity, no blood stain was found, as the serologist reported. property advocates from Chitral lawyer