Find a Lawyer

ARIF MASIH versus STATE

The testimony of section 2?b (b) and evidencere4 evidence was compiled in the case that the accused accused of capturing the movie camera and the accused, hired by the prosecution witnesses, killed the accused. Respecting the contradictory statements of, the evidence of any motive cannot be proved against the prosecution witness, who claimed to have been last seen with the accused, along with his previous statement. When he was accompanied by the accused along with the victim, his statement in this regard was found to be full of contradictions which proved it. That the witnesses were not true witnesses was last seen, it seems to have been later argued, which did not believe that the defendant's identification card and service card were recovered at the time of the victim's death. The story proved to be true. On the uproar, there is no recovered near the site of the incident, which is alleged to have been recovered from a pistol, which was denied at the time of his arrest, which by no means is the story of the prosecution. Could not support, the alleged recovery from the accused after the arrest of the police officer was not enough to connect the accused with the alleged crime, medical evidence did not support the prosecution. The identity of the deceased's body was also suspicious and no cause of death was disclosed. The prosecution failed to bring the accused beyond any doubt through strong evidence, arguing the trial and sentencing through the trial. The decision was set aside. And acquitted the accused of murder advocate from Choa Saiden Shah lawyer