Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ ALIAS JAT versus STATE

The definitions of Sections 302 (b), 392, 412, 451 and 460 of the evidence were filed after a substantial delay and the complainant spent considerable time with the prosecution's remaining witnesses and it could not be said that during that period the prosecution's witnesses Did not consult everyone. Other names of the culprits were not mentioned in the FIRFIR, it is revealed that the complainant as well as the other witnesses of the prosecution saw two suspects standing in the compound of the house of the average height and lean, And one of the suspects was holding a carbine. Identification mark was mentioned The description given in the FIR will fit thousands of citizens who have evidence and evidence on the circumstances of the case, when it was proven that the victim was allegedly attacked. The witnesses were not present and even if they were present, they could not identify the culprits and the fact was proved by the inquiry report which was prepared after the trial of the deceased's real nephew in the case of the accused participant. He went to his house in the presence of one (who was not produced during the trial) and confessed to his crime record. Detachment is not available given no reason why the accused went to the home of the victim's nephew, and he confessed his crime to rise. Judicial confession was a very weak category of evidence and was relied upon in the event of most unexpected events; additional judicial confession cannot be relied upon for a crime. The prosecution failed to prove the satisfaction of the court because the palace. No free person was presented from the scene or else the recovery was just proof and no how to become a advocate from Tando Mohd Khan lawyer