Find a Lawyer

MASOOD AHMAD versus STATE

The testimony of Sections 302 (b) and 34 of the testimony were both closely related to each other and to the defendant's witnesses, but the mere close relation of the witnesses was not sufficient to declare them as interested witnesses. Unless it is proven that their purpose is a lie. There was no hard and fast rule of law that involved the defendants that if the prosecutor presented non-trivial witnesses, their statements should be accepted without scrutiny. Each case had to be decided on its own particular circumstances. , The gravity of the crime was not enough to convict the accused involved in the crime, both witnesses confessed that they had been caught on false charges by the Member, Provincial Assembly, the accused in the murder case It was very unsafe to rely on these testimonies to maintain. Explain his presence on this occasion The story of the incident in a room was Bell The location of the incident through the site plan and the way in which the incident took place was not fully explained by both eyewitnesses. Another witness's statement clearly suggested that he was not present on the spot and that he had failed to state his cause. He was in the house in question at the time of the incident, when he was usually out for labor at the time, both witnesses were not present on the spot and did not witness the incident and took his name because of the proximity. The relationship with the deceased FIR was not immediately listed, but after a preliminary inquiry, it was listed with contempt, which led to his regret. immigration advocate from Chak Sawara lawyer