Find a Lawyer

KHURSHID versus STATE

The FIR of the definition of sections 302 (b) and 324 of the evidence was promptly filed and the delay, if any, was properly explained in which the participant escaped the law and was found guilty. Was given a direct fire to the witness, but luckily he was saved. It was said that the fire was recovered during interrogation by the accused along with a 30 bore effective and two live bullets. There was a common motive between the accused and his / her co-accused / alleged perpetrator, and there was a previous enmity and provocation against the accused otherwise, where the eyewitness accountability was credible, untrustworthy, lack of trust and shadow of doubt. , The weakness of the motion or the absence of it or where the accused was charged, but did not prove, that the sentence would hardly matter, the prosecutor had proved his case. The two men had to come with firearms to keep the punishment against the accused beyond any doubt. The accused started waiting for the complaining party when the complaining party arrived on the spot. The accused picked up Lalakara, after which the co-accused opened fire on the victim, after which the accused opened fire on the prosecutor's witness, which led to the absence of a trial, and the trial court rendered a reasonable decision which was not demanded. The trial court upheld the defendant's intervention and sentencing famous lower court advocate from Dinga lawyer