Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ versus STATE

Definitions of Sections 302 (b), 381 and 411 evidence of the suspicious incident were from another city resident and when he received the telephone notification, the prosecutor's witness who received the telephone at the scene of the incident. The call came, admitting that the distance between her home and the victim was about twenty kilometers, the testimony of the other prosecutor, who was allegedly a witness, said the statement of the witness did not appear before the trial court. Was against the statement made by the author. The witnesses, who allegedly provided extra-judicial confession, were mutually destructive and inconsistent and did not deserve any credibility, independent witnesses were not involved in the collection of stolen property and allegedly stolen property. Was not presented to the trial court prosecution, failed to prove the prosecution's circumstance under the circumstances, forgery and dishonesty by the police officer was brought to the record of the case with which the co-accused was produced on the same evidence. Was involved, he was eventually acquitted and his success was not challenged, his There was no independent credible evidence for the table. No one can be convicted on the basis of suspicions and assumptions from the acquittal co-accused's case, but the strongest of them can be convicted. There was a need, but the shortcoming was, after the trial, appeals were allowed against the trial decision. He was acquitted of all charges leveled against him and was released advocates from Kunri lawyer