Find a Lawyer

WAZIR KHAN versus STATE

Testimony of Section 2 (2 (b) / re 34 evidence) was shown to co-accused, their influence at the time of their arrest, but no vacancy was recovered from the incident and the report of the forensic science laboratory was only in effect. It is not possible to say whether the weapon was in working condition. Even as evidence considered as a piece of evidence, it did not disclose that the use of weapons in the incident led to the recovery of weapons from the accused. I was legally inactive. The previous enmity between the parties was established, and the same animosity was between the complainant and the prosecutor's witnesses. The testimony is not admitted through any independent piece of evidence, which was lacking in this case; the two eyewitnesses differed with each other about the manner in which they arrived. It may be that they established their presence on the spot and were presented with an unusual, Interest and for the sake of their presence on the occasion of the witnesses who had failed to specify whether the accused was not enough to connect with the Commission. Without trial, free embroidery and their evidence were not dependable Prosecutors failed to produce any independent and material testimony was not enough to link the accused to the crime because the motive was always a repeat weapon prosecution. Used to be, conditions divorce advocates from Sohawa District Jelum lawyer