Find a Lawyer

NUSRAT versus STATE

The testimony of section 302 (b) of the testimony was from the complainant's complainant who was four miles away from the scene, while the prosecution's second witness was a resident of the same village where the incident took place, another prosecutor's witness said His house was 2 acres away from the house of the deceased and the incident took place at the same distance, both said that the witnesses were on the spot, the only reason the two witnesses were present was because they Animals went to Mandi for sale and sale of livestock, witnesses at the hearing told Reuters when the cattle returned to the market on their testimonies. Was called because they could not prove that they were regularly transported to the cattle market and it may be safe to assume that the witnesses failed to give a proper explanation of their presence on the spot and they did not. But they were made witnesses. Thereafter, and thus, it cannot be relied upon to establish a FIR against the accused in the case of non-registration of the FIR immediately in the case, and the story of the present time only in framing the FIR. Had it been done, it could not have been used under the circumstances. A controversial piece of evidence in the ocular account, which nonetheless was found to be an irrelevant and credible affidavit, recounted in the manner described by the prosecution witnesses affected places that were not exclusively owned and The accused had such recovery. Incredible and legally inconceivable, the motive was steeped in mystery and the prosecution failed to prove a single case against the accused and law websites from Mustang lawyer