Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus STATE

Section 2?2 (b) and evidence 34 The definition of evidence was at night at the scene of the incident which was far from the victim's house and the witnesses were not specifically attributed to either the accused or the co-accused. During the trial, the complainant made unreasonable improvements. The site plan, which identified the witnesses as a co-accused, was developed by eyewitnesses, suggesting that the fire was approaching 60 feet away, according to a post-mortem examination report. There was supposed to be a firearm, which would mean that the injury was very close and a 12-bore weapon was used not just from a distance of sixty feet, but who used it. Witnesses did not know that this was an unexpected event and that they had a background. In the case of enmity and enmity between the complaining party and the accused, the father, two brothers were sued and the accused licensed pistol was charged. According to the report, such recovery in the working order could not be used against the accused because 30 bore pistols were not recovered from the spot, but two pellets of 12 were recovered on the occasion of the bore incident, which denied direct evidence. Was done, the conviction could not be recorded simply because of the fugitive, Asthma trial is completed, the appeal was allowed and the trial court's decision was separate, the accused was acquitted. All the charges and were released list of supreme court advocates from Kharian lawyer