Find a Lawyer

ABDUL REHMAN versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ ALIAS MAKHA

Appeal against the judgment of Section 17 (4) of the Criminal Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 341 and 392 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Authorization Act (VIII of 1974), 42 Shariat Court. Appreciation of evidence. An appeal was directed against the Shariat court decision, whereby the trial court held that the accused was hanged and instead sentenced to ten years' RI. The Shariah court had not passed the evidence for a moment and misinterpreted the evidence. The court overlooked the site plan which could be sent to determine the accused, the accused and the witnesses 'respective positions, and is also the place from which the witnesses witnessed the incident, while also praising the witnesses' testimony. The site plan had to be kept in mind. In particular, the Shariah Court did not admire the evidence, considering the positions of the prosecution witnesses involved in the Shariat court planning site, to establish an opinion about the witnesses, in which case the prosecution's witnesses were referred to the Shariah Court. False evidence was excluded, despite the evidence required under Evidence 7. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Act 1985 was not available, the RI was sentenced to 10 years under section 392; the PPC decision of the Shariat Court was contradictory on its own, without any concrete and concrete reason. Was. The firearm expert said that the recovered exhaust from the scene of the incident was exhausted from 222B. According to the accused post-mortem report, the ore was also verified by the prosecution, but the Shariat Court did not consider that. The main function of the evidence court was to deal with a murder case us immigration advocates from Karore Lalisan lawyer