Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus STATE

Sections 302, 460, 380 and 34 of the Criminal Procedure (V9 1898), the testimony of section 103 evidence against the defendants / appellants was that on the night of the incident, they, together with a fugitive co-accused, committed theft. Entered the complainant's house with the aim of but when the complainant's brother awakened and tried to arrest him, one of the accused opened fire. The complainant's brother, who died on the spot and all the accused escaped to the complainant, while in the FIR, the accused claimed that he and his brother could identify the accused. / The appellants were arrested and identified by the complainant and his brothers. In an identity test conducted by the Magistrate Trial Court, one accused was sentenced to death and imprisonment for 10 years and the other was sentenced to life imprisonment and 10 years imprisonment. This incident happened in the darkness of the night where there was no light / source of light. The eyewitnesses were the real brothers of the deceased, who contradicted each other on almost all material points. There is no validity of the identity test as the accused was already shown to the complaining party and that after the unnecessary delay, the identification party was held while giving the identifying party ample opportunity to see the accused while they were Were in police custody. Detained in the police station for five days and during which they were shown to the prosecution witnesses, such object of the accused was assisted by the evidence available on record, filed by the mother of one of the accused before the identification parade. Hubs Corps on request, Don best law firm from Kot Mithan lawyer