Find a Lawyer

MALIK MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus STATE

The accused was the husband of one of the accused accused of defining Section 2 (b) evidence and the third victim's grandfather was a maid in the house where the accused lived with both eye witnesses, was not more closely related to the accused complainant. The reason the incident was natural witness of the complainant is that the incident took place inside his own house. No reason is available on the record as to why the complainant falsely told his father in case of murder three times. It would be interesting to hang out because one of the prosecution's witnesses was a woman and her parents living in it. 2/3 of a house away from the house where the incident took place and his grandfather's grandfather's house had no unusual or unnatural grandchildren, was told that the witness's grandfather was guilty of his crime. There was no definite reason for committing a false report. The triple murder complainant made a permanent statement in connection with the trial. The minor woman / prosecutor's testimony could easily be explained in relation to her age. Yes, both of the prosecution's witnesses clearly pointed their accusations at the accused and all three murders involved in the case The culprit is the sole complainant and prosecution statements. The witness in connection with the incident was impressed by the prosecution, the prosecutor succeeded in establishing the motions he had set up and recovered the gun 12 bore in the ocular account against the twelve offenses recovered from the accused's offer. Was matched and recovered from the scene of the incident and the report of the forensic science lab in this regard solicitors from Jhal Magsi lawyer