Find a Lawyer

ALI SHER versus STATE

Section 2 302/3434 Re-evaluation of evidence Interested witnesses suspect the benefit of suspicion of ocular account with medical evidence occurred on a service road along a courtyard, at about 30 30 o'clock in the evening from the place where the alleged incident took place. The accused was shot. According to the post-mortem report, the lower court upheld the trial court convicted both the accused and sentenced one to death while the other was sentenced to life imprisonment. And the conviction and sentence was retained by the accused was that the eyewitnesses were interested and they were not natural witnesses and the prosecutor failed to prove his case beyond any doubt because the accused. Legal parties have been at odds with each other since the murder of their father. They had strained relations with each other and did not even talk about the father's murder. Two eyewitnesses who were closely related to the deceased could not be said to be an independent witness. The murder under question was not done in a village or town but on a service road that runs along a rajja at about noon. In the last days of March, the prosecution's witnesses, in addition to not being independent witnesses, were also witnesses to the possibility of acquittal, in the absence of which it would be extremely unsafe to base a crime on the testimony of two such eyewitnesses. From any independent or unidentified source, their testimony should have been from top to bottom in any direction of the victim's body and the shots left, but not as detailed by the wounds as the doctor gave. Was and in fact ask a advocate free from Pannu aqil lawyer