Find a Lawyer

SULTAN MEHMOOD versus STATE

Sections 302, 324/337 F (i) and 337 F (iii) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the evidence were reviewed in the residence of the complainant (wife of the accused). The son-in-law and the woman's two sons were living with her in the same house. The presence of all four on the spot was a natural phenomenon, and for this reason the three witnesses were the natural witnesses of the complainant's murder by her husband. The complainant's son and son-in-law were injured with 12 shotgun shotguns, the injured were witnesses, their presence was stronger. The prosecution examined all three witnesses against the accused. The witnesses were consistently in support of the facts already stated in the FIR, which, in those cases, was the most immediate filed report. Any possibility of false interference, debate, and debate was excluded altogether. The testimony of the witnesses in cross-examination could not have been at all disturbed. The litigation case proved to be just a scrutiny, with more than three eyewitnesses who were extremely natural and two of them were injured, with traces of their own occurrence. The testimony, testimony, and credibility of the witnesses were such that they did not even need to suffer. There is no doubt that the witnesses were related to the complainant as well as the accused, but the accused is the complainant's husband and the stepfather of one witness and the sister of the in-laws of the other. But there was no enmity with the accused for the murder of the victim, to the extent that he was involved in a large-scale crime. The ocular testimony was fully supported by the post-mortem report which included top civil advocates from Naukundi lawyer