Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AFZAL versus STATE

The accused accused of defining Section 302 (b) evidence, who was arrested after five years of presence, was declared to be absconding with the law and later two of the three prosecution witnesses were also injured, All the injured said that although the prosecution's witnesses had appeared in the trial court seven years after the incident, the ocular account offered by the eye witnesses was fully supported, through medical evidence. Was confirmed, the two sides know each other, there was no question of fault identification The accused was not successful in making the case. Could. The defense version of the two versions of the accused, denied consideration, did not recover any firearms on the identification of the suspects under the circumstances as he was arrested after five years. Could do After nine years, do not give any satisfactory answer by answering the question of his contentious response to the police. The fact is that the accused was innocent, had no identifiable value as the incident occurred on a broad day and two The injured witness appeared before the trial court and supported the trial case, otherwise the police opinion was not bound to the court's ocular account, which was completely medical evidence and a lengthy prosecution of the accused over five years. By certification, the prosecution further supported the case for the victim who committed the murder, and the prosecution Against mandatory was able to prove your case. In the absence of any mitigating circumstances in favor of hilt accused, the trial court immigration advocate from Chakwal lawyer