Find a Lawyer

SHAUKAT ALI versus STATE

The delay in defining section 302 (b) of the evidence, if reasonably explained in the filing of the FIR, even otherwise delayed, was not fatal in the case of the prosecution in filing the FIR. The star witness was injured, though he was closely related to the deceased. There was no enmity or any strong motive for making false allegations in the case, said the witness, who reasonably explained his presence at the scene of the incident. He was cross-examined, but nothing could be removed from his testimony. The prosecution's second witness was also persistent on all the material details of the case, and despite his cross-examination, nothing could be shaken from his testimony, which he had immunity during the trial. The eyewitness statement on the main points was such that even though the witness was the cousin of the deceased, he had no enmity with the accused, and he reasoned his presence on the occasion to witness the incident. One year and a half after the incident, the accused was arrested, proceedings were initiated under Section 12, CRPC, and evidence was filed that the accused was ocular. He was killed by an account with no cruel and ridiculous errors. The case was fully supported by medical evidence, as well as further assistance from the facts of his recovery, and the long-time accused was a single-person prosecution case for a period of one and a half years. In any case against the accused, under any circumstances, it proved beyond any doubt that he was charged with capital. immigration advocates phone number from Qalandarabad lawyer