Find a Lawyer

SAWAR KHAN versus NARGUS SULTANA

The appeal against Section 417 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302 Crimes against Enforcement and Property (Enforcement Hoods) Act 1985, Section 17 (4) was an unforeseen event and its support was unwarranted. Eyewitnesses did not. The murder did not prove to be a case because according to the prosecution, the motive was to take the golden jewelry worn by the deceased, but the FIR has revealed that when he found the body of the victim in the house, he was wearing golden jewelry. ? The golden jewelry, the statement of a child's witness regarding the sale and purchase of the deceased jewelry not born in the circumstances, does not support the story of the prosecutor, and the statements of the complainant and other prosecutors who were closely related, Did not link the accused to the commission. One of the prosecution's witnesses, who hails from different villages, said that the property was surrounded by housemates, saying that the witness was a stranger, especially as a disclosure witness. But when independent witnesses were available, they should have been restored. The delay in filing an FIR instead of the relevant witnesses remains unknown. Of late there was considerable doubt about the truth of the prosecution's case, the prosecution's witnesses were exclusively the complainant and they also faced material misconduct and illegal proceedings, and from an independent or apologetic source. It could not be confirmed and no weight of this kind could be given. In the death penalty case, the perpetrators of the evidence doubled their innocence. It has always been the duty of the prosecution to prosecute the accused registration advocate from Barkhan lawyer