Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus STATE

The testimony of the complainant was the real maternal uncle of the deceased, while the prosecution's witness was the complainant's maternal uncle, though the recovery of the pistol caused the firearm expert's report. There was no record - in this case, as was the case in the FIR, contradicting the medical evidence, the FIR said that the suspect was shot in the arm when he was lying on the bed in a prostate, but the medical According to the legal report, the doctor received a wound - the entrance to the left side of the deceased's abdomen; there should be no error in this regard. Particularly when none of the three prosecution witnesses mentioned in the FIR was brought to the hospital after the death, which revealed that no witnesses were present on the spot. According to the report, in order to create an account, had changed his prescription by making dishonest reforms, there is no document in the record to show that the doctor had declared the abductor, while in the injured, recording the statement / Was appropriate for the deceased's declaration, such a disappearance, the explicit value of the said statement was lost no lantern at the relevant time It was reported that the Inquiry Officer had taken over, recovering the pistol had no legal benefit as no firearms expert information was available. His record was a night-time incident, at which time the identity of the culprit was not possible until an FIR was lodged outside the police station beyond any doubt to maintain the prosecution of the accused. K us immigration advocates from Naukundi lawyer