Find a Lawyer

MST. SUGHRA BEGUM versus QAISER PERVEZ

Section 2 302 (b) Qutil reacts to the evidence The witnesses have not mentioned the actual address of the eyewitnesses required for the suspected incident in the presence of the main prosecution witnesses in the case of false witness crimes, and the FI R was from a place that was far away. From the crime scene, however, it was also added that they lived (for the time) in the area where the incident took place, the investigating officer did not suffer any trouble / affirmation that the required eye witnesses confirmed the current residence. Can be The witnesses did not present anything in black or white to show that they were actually living in the area where the incident occurred, a necessary indication that the best evidence would have been withheld from the court. And the eyewitnesses who witnessed the occasion, as they were several miles away from the scene of the crime from time to time, produced a significant delay in filing an FIR. Eyewitnesses claimed that they took Mutofi to the hospital. The practice in hospitals was that anyone who brought anyone to the hospital, Whether she was a relative or a friend, her name and details were mentioned in a specific column, which meant, however, that in the current case, the victim's Medico Legal report suggests that a cohort of epilepsy eye witnesses at the hospital As was not cited, even in the inquiry report, during filing of the prepared FIR, both the witnesses who were identified were not the desired eyewitnesses. Such misrepresentation made the presence of imported witnesses on the spot. Expressed serious doubts. The smoke famous lower court advocate from Gari Habibullah lawyer