Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IRFAN versus STATE

Section 2 30b (b) corroborates the prosecution's testimony, even though it belonged to the deceased, but there was no enmity or intention that the accused's father would take the real culprit of the case in this case, the witness Explained reasonably well. His presence at the scene of the incident and the lengthy investigation he encountered, but he could not be bothered by his testimony, the prosecution's second witness was persistent on all the material details of the case and no matter what During his interrogation, could not be excused from his testimony. The witness confirmed the key points of the statement of other key witnesses. Although he was the brother of the deceased, there was no hostility in falsely expelling him from the accused, Syed said the witness had reasonably proved his presence on the occasion that the accused was the only accused while witnessing the incident. The witnesses of both eyes, though they were related, could not be called witnesses of interest and opportunity because of the absence of a background of enmity between the two parties, as the medical evidence confirmed the ocular account. The accused, in his statement filed under Section 234 Cr, CRPC, held that the deceased had committed a physical offense. Tried to kill him and the dagger really hit his chest, was not understandable The prosecution had proved his case beyond the shadow of a suspect against the accused and the trial court rendered a reasonable decision to sentence the accused. In which the High Court did not demand intervention. The question of further softening in the jurisdiction of the appeal did not arise because the accused was a minor, he was already sentenced. top advocate from Pind Dadan Khan lawyer