Find a Lawyer

ANWAR-UL-HAQ versus STATE

Validating the provisions of Sections 302 (b), 324, 337b, 148 and 149, the incident was a pervasive event and, with reasonable urgency, an FIR was filed and all of the special roles played by them during the main incident. The suspects were clearly named. It was elaborated in detail that the eye witnesses presented by the prosecution were natural witnesses to the incident because the complainant and one eye witness lived in the premises contradicting the incident and the testimony of another prosecutor. Also lived in the same area. The witnesses, who suffered serious injuries themselves, showed their presence during the incident, all the witnesses presented by the prosecution were both deceased and injured, and the real culprits of such witnesses There was no possibility of screening and falsely. He said eyewitnesses have consistently excluded important events and the alleged contradictions were minor in their statements and did not affect the prosecution's main story and the prosecution's involvement in the incident. The purpose of the chemical that was set up was largely established and the serologist confirmed that blood was available from the accused. The weapons recovered from the accused were humane. The medical evidence substantially assisted the ocular account. Was provided because the date and time of its presence, weapons used and where the casualties were confirmed. As witnesses have said. Witnesses, the prosecution's story was substantially corroborated and, without any reasonable doubt, established their case against the accused. solicitors from Mir Ali lawyer