Find a Lawyer

RIAZ versus STATE

The testimony of the provisions of Sections 302 (b), 337a, 337f (i) and 452 evidence did not help in the trial of the accused in the recovery of firearms on the occasion of the accused as no crime was recovered on the spot. And was not sent to the firearm Specialist motivated rightly denied by the trial court Medical evidence did not fully support the prosecution version It was not explained by the injury prosecutor found in the thigh The injuries suffered by the prosecution witnesses cannot be guaranteed during the incident. After a defensive version of advice and deliberation about their true witnesses, an FIR was delayed more than nine hours after the victim was killed during an attempted robbery and the prosecution's witnesses were referred to unknown robbers. There were palette wounds chasing, ringing the truth, according to prosecutors, as well as the injured witness sitting on the bed at the time of the incident, but both of them said that the blood stains were found on all four and Neither were they captured, the light of the bulb did not support the suspect's identity, but the investigating officer made political animosity. Where the complainant with the complaining party had displayed hostile record from the party, the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses was not credible; the benefit of the doubt, if any slight matter, had to go to the accused, otherwise It was better to make mistakes than to make mistakes, the accused was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances. advocates from Washuk lawyer