Find a Lawyer

KARAM ALI versus STATE

Testimony of Articles 302 and 34 Evidence The benefit of the doubt was that the prosecution's witnesses were closely related to each other and that the old dispute and civil suit between the parties to the death were also filed by the victim and the complainant against the accused party. But due to litigation, the commission was created. The offense could not be proved by any independent evidence and other circumstances; oral statements cannot be supported by any independent evidence about the motion; the prosecutor was not able to prove the same against the accused beyond any doubt, Medical evidence did not support ocular. Both witnesses testified that witnesses did not tell the whole truth and that the medical evidence contradicts the picture account, which relates to the alleged role of the accused. The left shoulder of the victim, who was hit by the roof top, also did not support the account of the co-accused firing on the forehead of the co-accused, nothing was recovered during the interrogation of the co-accused and the results of the investigation. According to the co-accused did not participate in the incident or fired. The deceased medical evidence contradicts the ocular account of the role attributed to the accused persons, the statements of eyewitnesses cannot be relied upon against the accused. In both cases the independent witness was lacking. Both witnesses were residents of the same vicinity. And their presence cannot be doubted on the spot, but it was not enough to understand the mere fact that what was said by the witnesses was true, when the witnesses did not say the whole truth and their version Medical evidence contradicts the ocular account lawer from fb area from Thatta lawyer