Find a Lawyer

NAIK MUHAMMD ALIAS NAIKA versus STATE

Section 2302 (b) and 34 34 accused of lacking evidence, conviction, mitigating circumstance that they would not press for their evil, but would pray alone to reduce their punishment because they There are mitigating circumstances in which the complainant was the deceased's father, while the second witness of the prosecution was the cousin of the deceased and lived two miles from the location of the incident. But the mere fact of their relationship with the deceased would not be enough to refute their evidence. Both said that the witnesses were examined at length, but the truth of their statements did not constitute any notable obstacle as the witnesses contradicted all material aspects of the case. Their statements were very modest in nature, and statements related to the name of the tractor driver's driver were recorded after more than three years, and over time, such contradictions naturally occurred. The statements of the witnesses born were faithfully convincing and supported the circumstances of the case and the medical evidence and were also supported by the lawyer for the motive of the accused. In these cases there is no pressure to acquit the accused. It was in this case that the two accused were real brothers. That a bullet was fired for everyone and medical evidence could not determine whose bullet proved fatal, while maintaining the conviction of the accused in connection with the crime # Sections 302 (b) and 34, His death sentence was reduced in PPC. Life sentence sentenced by the High Court family advocate from Daulat Pur lawyer