Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AJMAL versus MUHAMMAD JAVED

Clauses 302, 324, 337A (i), 341, 147, 148 and 149 of the statements appear to contradict the statement of witnesses that they arrived at the scene of the incident and saw the accused hurt the victim's body. The complainant contends that the consistency and contradictions would not make the entire statement untrustworthy because the court had stabbed the grain if any witness made a contradiction or improvement that could adversely affect his credibility. That will not be enough. Reject his testimony because a complete complainant had clearly disclosed how the incident occurred in full detail and there was no contradiction or contradiction in his statement The evidence of the complainant who was with the victim and who was injured in the incident was sufficient. To prove the prosecution's case, because the conviction could be based on a single statement of a witness and there was no specific number of witnesses required as evidence of any fact, the importance should have been given to the standard and not to the evidence. Of quantities. There is no doubt about the testimony of the complainant and the prosecution, although their evidence was true, and the evidence was trustworthy, it cannot be. Only on the basis of such relationships were dismissed unless the witnesses had any enmity with the object of the accused unless the witnesses had recovered a knife because his witnesses were not presented, seriously. There was no need to consider since the investigating officer was present and did not testify. The recovered prosecution proved the case completely by presenting impressive evidence with facts and conviction, the object was dismissed, family advocate from Kalaswala lawyer