Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN versus STATE

Article 302 (b), 324 and 337 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), the prosecution's response to the evidence proved beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused, and the incident was admitted by the accused. What did As described under Section 342, CRPC accused appeared under section 340 (2), CRPC as its own witness but did not present defensive evidence but the incident was recognized but the version changed. The Supreme Court, with great caution, will turn to what his version was, from the prosecution's evidence to the factual and unforgettable and whether any of the accused was favorable to him or not, he did not specifically request. In the present case, the accused came up with a special plea giving evidence of a parallel story. When the prosecutor justified the defendant's two statements, he showed nothing but the defendant's attempt to obtain some concession in the matter of conviction, knowing that the prose had proved to be some other kind of event and The parallel version was presented only for the said object. Such a defense was not strong and powerful enough to eliminate the exposed version of the eyewitnesses, especially the injured person who was allegedly injured by the parallel. The story presented by the accused accused of being inadmissible, the Supreme Court refused to bring him under investigation in a case where the sentence was reduced to two other than a felony attempt in the lives of two others. Also justified it in a very disappointing way. An appeal for a leave of appeal was dismissed property advocate from Chak Jhumra lawyer