Find a Lawyer

RIAZ versus STATE

Section 2 (2 (b) / evidence) The complainant, who was the real mother of the accused, was not a resident of the incident site, the names of the five accused were registered in the FIR, two of the five accused. Was acquitted by the trial court while the third was a large number and only two accused were sentenced and the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination on the deceased's body, found various parts of the body of the deceased. Three firearms were reported on the wounds, while eyewitnesses mentioned only one firearm. If there were eyewitnesses at the relevant time, they would have fired only one fire. The complainant, too, could not mention the shoot. The complainant had also brought dishonest improvement before the trial court. On the same evidence, two accused were acquitted on charges of appearing in court. There was controversial and free evidence against the accused parties. The two were unusual and there was a dispute between the medical account and the medical evidence. At the time of the incident, the witnesses were not present on the spot as the FIR was lodged after consultation and consultation and no recovery was made from the accused. There was, and two similar evidence, the trial court pronounced the sentence against the accused After that he was acquitted. Set aside, they were acquitted and released by the trial court property advocates from Layyah lawyer