Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ILYAS versus STATE

Section 2 (b (b) / evidence 34) Testimony of evidence Post mortem inspection was conducted on the very next day of this incident. Post-mortem inspection of such delay immediately prompted the prosecution's story on FIR registration. Suspicions arose after consultation and consideration could not be ruled out when conducting a preliminary inquiry into the possibility of registering an FIR, such an FIR cannot be used as a disputed piece of evidence in an ocular account. The witnesses were in a mutual relationship and there was also a previous rivalry between the parties with the deceased. Those statements cannot be trusted, unless they are confirmed by some independent piece of record unless the possibility of consultation and deliberation before the case is filed is excluded. However, three eyewitnesses who were close to the inter-city and the deceased did not find the truth. The incident took place in a densely populated area, where the number of houses was large, but it was reported that none of the houses were located. Did not observe. Medical evidence did not fully support the ocular account, eye witnesses appeared to be tutors and did not speak at all. The fact is that the independent witnesses were not presented to the police during the investigation for immediate registration of the FIR and the case was not filed with immediate resignation, the accused Ocular presented by the eyewitnesses. All family members of the account were agreed to be involved. Eligible and cannot be relied upon when the incident is allegedly located by chance. top advocates from Hala lawyer