Find a Lawyer

BARKAT ALI versus MUHAMMAD ASIF

Section 2 302/34 evidence / 999 evidence The re-emergence of the evidence was made when the presence of the prosecution witnesses was not proved. Weapons were not recovered from the accused on the occasion, according to the prosecution witnesses. The gun did not appear to have been recovered from the alleged co-accused of the rifle related to the 12 bore euritas in the forensic science laboratory, thus could not be relied upon, 12 bore spaces in the forensic science laboratory a month and Received after 10 days of presence and recovered 24 hours later. There was no explanation on the record why the 12 labs were not sent to the laboratory immediately after his recovery as motivation was not supported by independent evidence, records on the material showed that the victim was Many enmity was not proved through documentary evidence or oral evidence, while recording his statement under Section 342 CCPM, the question of fugitive was not put before the co-accused again. The absence of evidence will not prove sufficient to prove a crime when, according to eyewitnesses, The tow was struck 30/35 feet away, but medical reports show burning and blackness on the dead. The physical blackness will appear on the dead body when the deceased suffered injuries of four (4) feet, according to medical evidence, the contradictory statement of the eyewitnesses, it is alleged that he was acquitted of the circumstances. online advocate from Sehar Baqlas lawyer