Find a Lawyer

SHER MUHAMMAD versus STATE

The testimonies of Articles 324 336, 504, 114, 148 and 149 were both brother to each other, both the complainant and the injured prosecutor, and the prosecutor excluded the third prosecutor's witness, who was free. The accused has won the non-examination. He said that the prosecution's story reflects badly on independent and unwanted witnesses. The accused claimed hostility from the injured, because of the enmity between the parties, two interested, hostility and rival witnesses could not be safely relied on without a piece of evidence as it was due to witnesses. Due to the alleged enmity, the accused involved did not endorse oral evidence from the medical evidence and neither the eyewitness testimony nor any piece of evidence was included, including medical evidence. I was inclined to rely on such evidence, contrary to the material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. Other contradictions raised suspicions in the PR story of dishonor and the true prosecution of the evidence failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt; the accused deserved the benefit of the doubt, which accordingly gave them. Went to famous supreme court advocate from Gohar Ghoushti lawyer