Find a Lawyer

ALLAH DITTA versus STATE

SS: 2 302, 4 364 and ??? / / / evidence / evidence evidence The value of the evidence was based solely on the evidence of the situation No independent person was presented to confirm the complainant's statement. That the complainant had gone to the accused from the first day after the disappearance of the deceased, the registration of the FIR in the case with a delay of one month and twenty-one days for his return had raised serious doubt on the complainant's version. , On the same evidence, the two defendants were acquitted, leading to a serious breach of the prosecution's version. The last witness, who was presented to prove the evidence last seen, did not immediately report it to the police. The last witness he saw was a resident of the place, which was about 15 miles from the first witness's residence, and did not show any specific reason for his presence in the house last seen. The witnesses said both witnesses were not natural witnesses F. No mention was made at the time of the IR's when it said the witnesses saw the deceased and also failed to state that they were defending during cross-examination. In relation to what was going on, it fully proved that the complainant's statement about the incident, in the FIR Guy was different from the allegation. The witnesses could not be satisfied that they saw the deceased in the company of the accused, including money from any of the accused, who was on the departure of the accused with the last seen evidence, which otherwise I was a weak type of evidence, which cannot be relied upon by the prosecutor jobs for fresh advocates from Ali Chak lawyer