Find a Lawyer

ABDUL SATTAR ALIAS MUHAMMAD ILYAS versus STATE

Section 2 302 / QQ Law Testimony (1984 1984 of the ten), Article ying evidence Defining evidence, and it was set on fire After such death, he was taken to hospital in critical condition and admitted there. Later, he filed an alleged death statement and the accused was on trial as the named suspect. The accused claimed that the deceased recorded two statements as dying declarations and that both statements had different types. The statement was not supported either by circumstantial evidence or by circumstantial evidence, and the investigating officer recorded the subpoena statements, which were never included, without the permission of the doctor, the prosecution's witnesses testified. Was restored to the statement of the deceased who was able to die. The statement of the deceased 1984 statement under Article 46 of the law testimony does not reveal that when it was set on fire, the incident has been witnessed by a passenger or a resident of the area which is mentioned in the FIR and The statement by the investigating officer contradicts the statement that the deceased was set on fire in the street while the statement filed by the investigating officer stated that the deceased was burnt to a house. Even the two statements of the investigating officer were different from each other. The investigating officer did not seek any permission from the first doctor. Nor was it recorded in the presence of the doctor recording the statement of the deceased. The prosecution case was supported by medical evidence that the victim lost his life due to the fire and was not further accused. No result of retrieving plastic gallons from home best advocate from Deh Pathaan lawyer