Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus STATE

Two persons were summoned as court witnesses at the trial on the request for a trial on section 540 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), section 302/324/148/149; both men were acquainted with the above case. Were and were examined. The investigating officer and his evidence in the background of the investigation were essential to the fair decision of the case. One of the men was not an eyewitness to the incident, but before the investigating officer he had forwarded the request made by an accused, and as such, he was primarily a defense witness and his testimony was prosecuted. Will make the case biased and put the accused in a beneficial position as the accused will have the opportunity to examine his own testimony, no doubt, the second part of section 540, CCP was mandatory, but the above For reasons, it was neither advisable to ask the aforementioned witness as a prosecution nor in the fitness of anything, and for that reason, he was not allowed. You may be required by the school. As a defense witness, the other person was actually involved in the investigation when the police were aware of the crime scene because of the proximity to his shop and was told that the person could be named as an accused and therefore Seeking them as a trial witness by the trial court was neither against the law nor in any way discriminatory, the amendment in the complainant's case was partially dealt with. divorce advocates from Gawadar lawyer