Find a Lawyer

MUNEER AHMED versus STATE

Section 2?2 (b) and 7 337a (ii) of the value of the evidence The benefit of the doubt was the version of the prosecution that the deceased was killed because of a civil litigation between the parties, but the prosecution did not have any evidence to prove. Failed to produce documentary evidence. Police had rightly denied many evidence of emptying cartridges and bullets during the investigation, but the crime-recovered arms were not sent to the Franzik Science Laboratory to match the aforementioned bullets. Element invalidated the retrieval. For collusion purposes, the FIR shows that the suspect fired 222 bore at his rifle, but allegedly recovered a 1 mm 44 gun on his offer. The court denied medical reasons for the trial. It was neither illegal to deny medical evidence nor to read false news nor to conclude evidence that the ocular evidence was not credible because both witnesses. Was denied because 11 accused FIR, which was the main document, were recorded on the spot. The person filing the FIR had received information about the incident from someone else on the occasion, but said that the prosecution had not been disclosed in the cases because the case was likely to be filed after questioning. And the possibility of consideration cannot be ruled out. The two witnesses were found inconsistent with each other. Ocular evidence was completely contradictory to the medical evidence, which raised doubts about the truth of the testimony of both eyewitnesses, which also ruled out the possibility of absence. immigration advocates contact from Shamsabad lawyer