The re-response of the appeal evidence against section 302 (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) against the High Court did not create confidence in the testimony of four witnesses, including the complainant, who were witnesses of the occasion and He did not adequately explain his presence. The complainant introduced two eyewitnesses at the relevant time, yet only one of the newly named witnesses was mentioned in the FIR, which was disclosed to the investigating officer a few weeks after the incident. Hostility to the matter was needed to prove immutable evidence in order to maintain its conviction, which was a deficiency in the case which led to the High Court's opportunity to approve the verdict. They were neither fictitious nor speculative and supported. The material on record was protected from the crime, even though it was not crime-free, and it was not sent to forensic science.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
