Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MAJID versus STATE

Benefit of Section 2 302 (b) / of 34 evidence against the accused and the appellant contradicting the medical and the account of the accused was given in the FIR that the accused / appellant along with the accused Kasie with the accused accused of murder. Sentenced the appellant to death and acquitted him. The complainant complained to the FIR regarding the accuracy of the co-accused that the accused committed 4/5 blows, which resulted in injuries to the head and neck of the deceased. The post-mortem report revealed that the deceased had received eight injuries. Six of them were caused by sharp weapons and two were injured by two bullets. The complainant and other witnesses tried to increase the number of injured. Prosecutors witnessed their statements unfounded following the post-mortem report. It is not mentioned in the FIR that the accused / appellant was injured as well as two-way Kassi, but During the step-by-step testimony, both witnesses stated that the injuries were due to the sharp turning of the shoulder as well as K. The prosecution failed to prove the motive. Evidence evidence should come from a different source of eye witness. They were witnesses and once they disbelieved about the motive, then it reflected the credibility of their account because the prosecution's story was based on eyewitness testimony. The statements of witnesses, who were affiliated with the Interstate and they did not see the case that the blood-stained case was not helpful in the prosecution because it was collected on occasion and not by the medical account of the accused / appellant. The ocular account prosecution case was not supported. The suspect / ape was not free from suspicion us immigration advocates from Malakand lawyer