Find a Lawyer

AURANGZEB ALIAS RANGU versus STATE

Appreciation of the Sections 302, 148 and 149 evidence was a daylight and the parties knew each other, it was not the case where the identity question was involved, the complainant was the deceased's father, while the prosecution's witness was the complainant or the accused. Was not very close. And he was dealing with the complainant as well as the brother, neither the complainant nor the prosecution's witness had any serious enmity with the accused, so both the complainant and the prosecutor's witness were involved in a false case. Has long been subjected to cross-examination, but his statements cannot be attributed to the minor contradictions that could have arisen due to the lengthy cross-examination, and it is also true that About six years after the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. The medical evidence prosecution, however, failed to produce evidence of the recovery of the weapons, the evidence of the accused's fugitive during the trial also proved unsatisfactory, the prosecutor had undoubtedly proved his case against the accused No independent witness was presented to do so, but it was not necessary to set the motive in each case and its weakened prosecution would not be harmed when a particular motive was assigned by the prosecution. Was not proven and then he set a different purpose or a modified purpose during the trial Or if so, it would affect the amount of the sentence The trial court did not have the right to sentence the accused, under Section 2302 (a), required under Section 4304 of the PPC for the murder responsible. Calm down Pakistan, top advocate family court from Kot Ghulam Mohd lawyer