Find a Lawyer

SAFDAR versus STATE

Section 302 (b), 109, 148 and 149 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Article 103 Benefit of Doubt The benefit of the suspects was not charged with the involvement of witnesses in the eligible area. The accused, after being subjected to a conspiracy with the trial court, was acquitted, while the accused / appellants were acquitted and sentenced to life imprisonment, who allegedly committed the conspiracy. The shops and houses that were evacuated but none of the eligible area were included in the police investigation. Eyewitnesses were witnesses of the occasion, and they were obliged to give a reasonable explanation for their presence on the spot. When their earlier statements were encountered, both eyewitnesses improved their statements on the material. Because of these points, because the eyewitnesses were not present on the spot, after being a close relative of the deceased, you were later introduced as witnesses, such eyewitnesses were therefore It cannot be relied on that he had no ex- perience, hatred with the accused party, after eye witnesses improved their statements, proved themselves. Witnesses were not allowed on the spot to be false because there could be no denying that the accused was involved in the crime on the basis of doubt. Medical evidence contradicts the account alone, as the entry was black and burning spots. The wounds, which indicate that the fire was fired from a distance of 6 inches to 3 feet, but the distance from which the accused shot the victim, were stated to be 5/2 feet, not to mention the trigger in the FIR. To be accused though best advocate from Hub Chowki lawyer