Find a Lawyer

SOHAIL SHAHZAD versus STATE

Section 2 30b (b) The testimony of the defendant was not presented to the trial court for the mitigation of the sentence because the other witness of the prosecution, who was the real grandson of the complainant, had succeeded in winning the evidence. Because they were not named, the FIR complainant, who was the victim's father, was left in the FIR only in this case, with the number of injured persons proving that more than one accused had fired at the accused. It was a rare occurrence to replace the original culprit, and especially when there was a real father. Complainant's presence was established at the time and place of the complainant. There was no victim background of enmity between the parties. Before the actual incident of the murder, there was a dispute over playing cards between the victim and the accused. Who had wandered mysteriously. They were not disclosed before the trial court. None of the accused had any significant injuries to the prosecution Ha D failed to prove except that no accomplices were available other than the complainant's confirmation that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased, at the time of death. There were cases where, as before the incident was engulfed in mystery, the prosecution failed to prove the motive and the culprits were convicted under Section 302 (b), PPC, but their The sentence was imprisoned with death so that it could be punished and already retained. law firms from Bhalwal lawyer