Find a Lawyer

SAJID ALIAS SAJU versus STATE

Definitions of Articles 302 and 34 Evidence Defendant's witnesses were not present at the time of the Pro's shooting. On hearing the firing, he was on his way to the scene, when he was walking towards the spot, he saw three men running toward the east, but there was no description of the men driving by them. Was given by one of the prosecution witnesses in his cross examination. Unable to tell the time, date and year of the incident, and they did not allege that witnesses were not being identified despite the fact that the persons they saw had weapons and were not being identified. The duty was to parade the ID. The accused, but no action was taken in that direction, was lethal for such a solitary prosecution case because the identification parade was absolutely necessary when the accused were not witnesses to the prosecution witness who had been acquitted of the deceased with the victim. What was, had not even identified the accused before. As a trial court, the person with whom the witness testified during the cross-examination also tted that the suspects did not know about it when the accused did not know the prosecution's witnesses first. Their details were not given in the FIR. The prosecutor made no attempt to identify them either through the identification parade or by any other means, and prosecutors' witnesses did not specify exactly which of the three suspects was shot. For, that was legal evidence. It must be of a controversial nature, beyond doubt, to link it to the commission of the crime, submitted by the prosecution. solicitors from Mohmand lawyer