Find a Lawyer

ZAKIR HUSSAIN versus STATE

Repeated firing of Section 2 (2 (b)) evidence led to the victim's repeated firing while he was sitting outside the barber shop accused the father of the accused of selling drugs to the court. I was registered for the case and was dismissed from the court repository. The complainant and other eyewitness cannot be excluded because of the son and the deceased's friend, respectively. The motive of the case was proven and the defense did not create any slight suspicion on the day of the incident. That his original criminal version of the prosecution sought to replace false opportunities or accusations that the deceased was attacked from the front, but according to medical evidence, he also suffered wounds to his back. In view of the evidence on record, such contradiction will enter because of the fact that the prosecution's witnesses did not witness the incident or litigation by not presenting any other witness on the occasion. Given, such a place was located near the houses of the parties, the presence of eyewitnesses could not be doubted on this occasion. Generally avoiding enmity such as hesitating to become a witness in this case, the barber's absence or any other witness present on the occasion, thus, could not be considered to be an adversary to the trial, at least punishing the accused. No death sentence was identified for. The Supreme Court upheld the case through the trial and the certified by the High Court. lawer from fb area from Ahmed pur Sial lawyer