Find a Lawyer

AHMAD KHAN versus STATE

Sections 302 (b), 148 and 149 of the Criminal Code (v. 1898), the former enmity between the parties 103, with the help of medical evidence, did not prove the recovery of the weapons and vacancies against the accused / appellants. The murder of two people along with the accomplices was a pre-trial case that was prosecuted by the trial court by the defendant, while the six accomplices were acquitted, sentenced and sentenced to life imprisonment. The sentence was pronounced, and the two co-accused were found to have testified as prosecution witnesses. Due to the perceived enmity, communion from an independent source was required and should not be readily acknowledged for the purpose of conviction of the accused. Medical evidence did not confirm the medical evidence of the extent of the injuries inflicted by the two deceased criminals. The account of the blaze attributed to one of the accused was confirmed by the enmity between them and that aspect of the dead foot in support of the fact that in the above incident, a woman was also injured by the accused who was subsequently fined for not receiving any injuries. The recovery of the weapons was not only delayed but could have been the same in clear violation of Section 103, CRPC, for no immediate purpose could be relied upon for litigation. Other weapons were not sent to the forensic science laboratory for expert opinion, therefore, their recovery was not proven. I've been related to the recovery of the two arms of the crime that criminals were convicted on the basis of the crime. During the trial, convicting the accused / appellants, the conviction evidence of the same set which lawer from fb area from Kachhi/Bolan lawyer