Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN versus STATE

Validating the provisions of Sections 2 (2 (b) and 3 353, the prosecution's evidence contained major contradictions. General charges were laid against the accused and no one was assigned any special role, but the police did not know about the area. Detective information was obtained. The presence of the accused at the site of the alleged incident was not associated with any private person in the area as a witness to the incident; the police had modified their statements to improve the prosecution case which had many contradictions and Serious doubts were raised. The confrontation between the police and the accused continued for 6/7 minutes, claiming that one person died from the side, yet no crime was recovered from the spot, the alleged fire recovered from the accused. The weapons were not sealed, which caused them to fail. The firearms in the hands of the two suspects were not seen by PK witnesses of the rape at the time of the incident, who suggested their false interference in the case that an accused was on his duty at the time of the incident and The case was not free of suspicion No address of suspects was given, unrestricted warrant arrests were issued against them and after no publication in the newspaper, which was a necessary requirement, the declaration proceedings were defective. The suspects were acquitted under conditions. famous lower court advocate from Gawadar lawyer