Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AMIN versus STATE

Section 302 (c) Appreciating the evidence All three witnesses of the prosecution were subjected to cross-examination but successfully passed such a test because their statements did not contain material contradictions, contradictions or omissions. Was not seriously challenged as there was no cross-examination. Denying the fact that it was alleged that the accused did not cause any injury to the victim. All three witnesses of the prosecution, who were police officers, had no enmity or suggestion of hostility from the accused. He, in any case, had no reason to involve the accused, saying that the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses made it clear that the accused was caught red-handed at the site of the incident at the time of his wife's murder commission, Whose confession was a crime record. The accused revealed that the confession offense was recorded after completing all legal formalities, so the recorded confession statement was fully supported by the Auckland Witness Prosecution, which in the circumstances confessed to the crime, which was blood-stained. Was enough to convict the defendants of the rescue. Blood stains were secured from the possession of the accused, sent to a chemical examiner who told that Hatchty had been stained with human blood. A confessional statement of the prosecution has been revealed in the recovery, in the circumstances. The accused was found guilty of any reasonable suspicion, rightfully sentenced under the circumstances, by the trial court when you need a advocate from Kamalia Musa lawyer