Find a Lawyer

SHER ZAMAN versus STATE

Definition of Section 2 (b (b)) of the evidence benefiting from the alleged FIR was promptly filed, but it did not confirm any of the accused's account of his involvement as his name was his I was not involved. After that, during the course of the investigation, both the prosecution witnesses were mutual and the victim had no previous hostility with the accused and could not be called interesting witness, but it was not enough to believe that they were The statements of the prosecution witnesses and the statement of the deceased did not disclose the name of the accused because the original Ram, who committed the crime, was lodged against the unidentified person, and according to witnesses in their statements under section 161, it was not clear to the CC the cause of the suspect's identity. It cannot be denied that the accused was involved in the case because of suspicion. He said that two witnesses of the prosecution were found to be untrustworthy witnesses. The facts showed that they gave tutored statements which led to the arrest of the accused by the police. Had tried to hide the facts of the case to show that they had only seen the accused at the time of identification. On the parade and not before, the ocular account and identification parade were ineligible and the presence of both witnesses at the scene of the incident seemed doubtful that the possibility could not be ruled out in the manner described by the prosecution witnesses. Didn't work. , But the victim was alone when some unidentified criminals attacked a place near the home of prosecutors' witnesses, otherwise he was taken to the hospital by the prosecution's witnesses. famous lower court advocate from Hujra Shah Muqeem lawyer