Find a Lawyer

SHEHZAD versus STATE

Sections 302 (b), 324, 337d, 337a (II) and 337f (v) were close neighbors of the parties and there was no ill-will or bitterness between them and they were at peace in the same street. And living happily. On the day of the incident, there was a dispute between the parties and there was no pre-existing or any motive to harm the complaining party to the accused, whom the Investigating Officer admitted was a crime scene. The availability was not mentioned to any extent and was kept under local police custody for more than a month and was dispatched to the forensic science laboratory after its recovery. A gun was not recovered from the possession of the accused for allegedly stabbing the accused with blood, such as Swat, Danda and iron rod, after it was allegedly recovered jointly from the same house. There was no significant recovery cost, medical evidence confirmed that the accused party suffered injuries during the same incident. True medical evidence not only contradicted the eyewitness testimony, but it has also gone a long way in supporting the defense version of the defendant's FIR application and according to statements of all four prosecution witnesses, the accused was offended. The initial cause was provided by the complaining party on the day of the incident. At that time the complaining party was unarmed and did not cause any injury to the accused party as had been done by the accused in the incidents, which could be reasonably true and in all probability it was the complaining party itself. Was an accused party registration advocate from Kotla Jam lawyer