Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AFZAL versus STATE

Articles 302 (b), 324 and 440 of the testimony of testimony, all the prosecution witnesses were closely related and there was no previous rivalry between the parties with the victim, two witnesses of the prosecution were injured during the incident, while others Two were also residents. The presence of prosecution witnesses in the same area was free of any doubt in the circumstances and the presence of witnesses in the facts and events of the incident and witnessing the incident, however, was not sufficient to prove that they too The correct account was created. In the case of the two accused, his sister also suffered injuries, which was not explained by the prosecution, but the contradiction in the prosecution's position regarding the most important fact - the place where the incident took place. was present. The complainant's home, but at the trial the complainant changed the location of the incident medical. According to the ocular account of the number of injuries attributed to each of the accused, no evidence was found. Medical evidence contradicted the testimony of four witnesses. ? There were also conflicts with the Accular Account regarding the injuries to the deceased person. In the circumstances, the site's plan, which did not fully support the ocular account, did not reveal that the suspects surrounded the witnesses. Because they were not in such a state. The accused and the other accused's sister were not explained to them by the prosecution's witnesses, the eyewitnesses did not find them as true witnesses as they had sustained injuries on the accused persons, the statement of the prosecution's witnesses The event did not occur in the manner specified. The 11 accused named in the incident law firms from Jalal Pur Priwala lawyer