Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus THE STATE

Section 302/148/149 Eye witnesses are interested and interested in each other, and their testimony directly conflicts with medical evidence. The apparent contradiction of the medical evidence with the eyewitness account concludes that witnesses were not present when the incident occurred. And the independent witness who witnessed the incident was not presented by the prosecution for unknown reasons, where the incident occurred on a road where many people were present but no eyewitness witnessed. Which raised considerable doubt as to the truth of the prosecution's story-maker's first truth. The report provided a better version of the trial case to remove the fatal and hereditary defects in the case of the prosecution, the motivational part of the prosecution's story was not reasonably proven by the prosecution, it was reported Someone had recovered it. Medical evidence contradicts, and for this reason, there is no heel The prosecution did not come up with the true facts of the case and they have hidden material facts from the disclosure prosecution version they had placed with the police, from the trial. Already relying on them was quite different, the prosecution did not prove the case against the accused further. Reasonable doubt and punishment were set aside Pakistan, top advocate family court from Hassan Abdal lawyer