Find a Lawyer

SHAHZAD versus STATE

The testimony of Section 2 (2 (b)) was not recorded according to the statements of the detained witnesses at the hospital, as the prosecution's FIR claimed, in the circumstances of the dispute in the account. And the prosecution's evidence had to be looked at carefully and carefully, both witnesses are the real ancestors of the deceased, close relatives and even with the victim, both eyes witnesses in the way they There was a contradiction between the two who were seated. During the Dargah inquiry, the two witnesses of the shrine were spotted. On the occasion of his failure to provide any reasonable explanation for his presence, said that the witnesses were witnesses of the occasion who were obliged to give a reasonable explanation for being present and witnessing the incident. The presence of eye-witnesses was also found to be suspicious of the evidence of the court's witnesses on the occasion, confirming the testimony of the court shows that this was an irrational incident and that the account was subsequently denied. After the medical evidence was also found in the FIR contradicts the ocular account, the medical evidence, in the circumstances, also from the account Unbeknownst to the Medico Legal Report it was revealed that 10 were injured, but only one injury was attributed to the accused and the rest of the injuries were attributed to the co-accused, which was already ruled by the trial court. Had been acquitted while denying the same witnesses was not included in the respect of the area. Recovery action that was a violation of Section 103, CR PC and the prosecution property advocates from Kotla Arab Ali Khan lawyer