Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL versus STATE

The benefit of the FIR, suspicion of clauses 302 (b), 148 and 149 of the evidence, shows that at the time of the incident, the accused was armed with a 12-bore gun and the casualties were injured, while the two co-accused 7 MM were equipped with rifles, but witnesses changed their stand before the trial court, saying that at that time, the accused and his accomplices were picked up by eyewitnesses in front of a confrontation with medical witnesses. According to the prosecution case, the accused persons were standing on the roof of the house of the accused, while the other accused were standing in the courtyard of his house and allegedly And the roof top suspect was shot, but the site was the home of the accused according to plan. Closer to the site of the incident and the suspects could not have been injured while the criminals recovered from the spot on the roof of the house were sent to the forensic science laboratory on the spot. Proof of recovery was produced, cannot be denied. The prosecution's crime could not be proved. The other co-accused trial court had already acquitted the eight co-accused, denying the prosecution's case, but in the absence of any evidence, it was not safe to rely on the same set of defendants as the medical evidence contradicts the evidence. Were. Prosecutor's position, a large number of the accused involved in the case were found to be innocent by the trial court; in those cases, the convict was convicted and the accused was punished as if he were entitled to doubt. And he was acquitted. best law firms from Abbottabad lawyer