Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD KHALID versus STATE

The testimony of sections 302 (b) and 148 of the testimony was that one of the prosecution's witnesses was the real brother of the deceased and the other's son, while the second witness of the prosecution was his brother-in-law and the two accused were previously anonymous with the party. Could not be refuted. As independent witnesses, but there were interested witnesses whose statements, with reasonable caution and caution, had to ascertain whether they had said the whole truth or not, the presence of witnesses on the occasion was suspected. There were some contradictions in the statements. Witnesses said eyewitnesses to the alleged injury to the victim's right shoulder, both said witnesses also failed to say who fired at the victim's witnesses, to identify the suspects. Unable to say who opened fire, the two victims said they were injured. The witnesses were not the same on other points Both witnesses also contradicted each other. On the occasion, one of the witnesses was skeptical about the vacancy, he was not a man of good character and could be expected to make a false statement. It is reported that the locations of the incidents were reported to be surrounded by houses, but not a single independent person was attracted to the spot. The Ocular Account story was made more false by the site plan. Medical evidence also raised suspicion in the account regarding the time of the incident and did not occur in the manner described by the prosecution's witnesses. The accused was unforgettable as there was no vacancy recovered from the place and there was no evidence that the accused was allegedly acquitted. immigration advocates email from Bat Khela lawyer