Find a Lawyer

STATE versus AHTASHAAM NABI

Defining section 2 (2 (b)) of the evidence, a reduction in the FIR was immediately recorded, which also mentioned the name of the accused firing on the accused along with the accompanying accused, which states that the incident. Immediately after the claim was made by the prosecution, to be used as a piece of evidence in the account, the two eyewitnesses, though closely related to each other and to the deceased, but with each other and Eyewitnesses' close relationship with the deceased was not the basis for declaring them as interested witnesses when they lied to the accused in this case. There was no previous enmity or illicit desire to be implicated. Both eyewitnesses were independent and natural witnesses because they were residents of the same village. At the time of the incident, the presence of eyewitnesses was sufficiently explained. The incident, which took place on a route / path surrounded by different people-owned land, was possible for the people to be present at the relevant time of the incident and to testify that the incident could not have been taken care of and the accused within the day. Should have been identified, both witnesses at that time, agreeing on material points regarding the location and location of the scene. The presence of prosecution witnesses on the spot was further facilitated in the registration of the FIR and post-mortem examination without any delay, the eyewitnesses had to undergo cross-examination for a long time, but defense Could not shake the confidence of They were worth relying on because they had no motive to make false allegations in the case and to notify the collar account of any suspicion. family advocate from Kurram Agency lawyer