Find a Lawyer

SHEHLUM versus STATE

The testimony of the section 302 (b) was given to the eyewitness account of the incident by way of a complaint to two other prosecution witnesses, the complainant was the relative of the deceased and he knew that the accused and the accused were the prosecuting lawyer. The woman was described as having a medial and cross-examination, and during the course of the investigation, she admitted that the accused and the fugitive suspect gave the Hecht injury to the patient who died in the hospital. However, when he was cross-examined by a defense lawyer, he confessed that he did not see the suspect in the victim's wounds, but he was seen passing by another prosecution witness. Had been examined at length, but nothing was revealed. The third prosecution witness, who was the brother of the deceased, upset the fact, his evidence showed that he was present with the complainant and that the second prosecution witness was also examined at length in the testimony. , But nothing could be extracted to dispute his credibility. The witness was fully supported by the medical evidence and was not pursued in any such way, the complainant filed the report as soon as possible and the alleged two-hour delay in filing the FIR was explained. That is, both witnesses in their statements provided a permanent account of the incident involving the accused and the fugitive, the presence of the witnesses said that the entirety was based on J and it cannot be fully suspected. They belong to a village not far from the scene, unless their testimony is weak. patent advocate from Kazi Ahmed lawyer