Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ AHMAD versus THE STATE

The witnesses of the Section 302/34 incident who supported the prosecution's case in all material particulars had no prior rivalry with the accused and did not injure the accused. There was no major contradiction or material contradiction. Was not identified and their evidence was in line with medical evidence. Describing the facts of their presence at the scene of the incident, the statement of their facts to the accused, the presence of the accused, the presence of the accused at the scene, his arrest by the private persons and the occasion. There is no dispute about keeping them in custody until the arrival of the police; the fact is that the shotgun killed the convicted defendant fired from his revolver and stripped the revolver and the bandleader, who later appeared before the police. Was presented because it shows the nature of the wounds of the accused. He and his wife were accused of failing to establish their version through direct or indirect evidence of defendant's failure to establish their version through direct or indirect evidence. No one was fired and there was no reasonable possibility of his prescription being correct. The presence of a firearm in the person of the defendant also ignored the story of his defense, denying that his version was false. The teammates were aggressive. As stated by the prosecution, nor in these circumstances was the defense requested top advocates from Lalamusa lawyer