Find a Lawyer

MUDASSAR MUNAWAR versus STATE

The complainant did not give any reason why he was going with the prosecutor's witness at the relevant time, while the complainant's house was four or five kilometers from the incident and the prosecution witness The house was 11 km from the house. The FIR found that the assailant had fired a bullet, but on this occasion, eye-witnesses were seized to investigate the investigator's case, and unjustified corrections were made to the trial. And it was also reported that the co-accused fired five bullets; the superiority of the eyewitnesses also denied their presence on the occasion. The presence of both witnesses on the spot was very suspicious, no witnesses could be found in the FIR, but it was shown. Eyewitnesses identified the deceased at the hospital before the trial court, stating that they did not know the names of the accused before 26 8. 2001, but the Investigation Officer stated the names of the two appellants, in preparation for some sort of planning on 25 8 2001, because on 8-8 2001 the accused was seized against the accused on the occasion, the co-accused was arrested A day later, he was arrested with 12 bore. The gun, but a blank section and its gun fire at the Firearms Specialist's Office received in 2001, a positive report in this regard, has lost its significance, after consideration and consultation on the circumstances, the FIR was filed. Was gone Eyewitnesses were not present on the scene, but they were later convinced to have a close relationship with the victim and the prosecution's story was filled with suspicion, the trial court sentenced the accused against the accused. list of supreme court advocates from Baroute lawyer