Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MAJEED versus STATE

Section 2 302 (b) Re-review of Evidence Repeat incidents of daylight fires, not to mention blood stained ground Complainant did not specify the bullets fired by the accused in the FIR , Nor is it mentioned that the dead fire like this. A portion of his body was retained by the trial court for trial by the High Court. The statement by the complainant was very natural and true, which could have easily improved his statement by explaining the number of shots and the location of the injury, but he did not. The witnesses could not be excluded simply because the blood-stained ground had not been collected by the investigating officer, in the event of a single suspect, when the light was found and the identity of the attacker was not in question. The prosecution witnesses consistently established their presence. The medical evidence of this incident and their statements was fully supported and the circumstances confirmed by th e case include the filing of an FIR immediately. Both courts rightly convinced the prosecution's evidence as the prosecutor successfully proved the case against the accused and repeatedly fired the victim, indicating that he intended to make some motive in this regard. Weakness cannot be avoided. The accused Supreme Court refused to interfere with the sentence and both the appeals courts upheld the sentence. law firms from Kahuta lawyer