Find a Lawyer

MUZAMMIL IQBAL versus STATE

The evidence of section 2 (b) / & evidence and 99 references was not complained of in the sentence, the reduction of time and the incident and the second witness of the prosecution lived five acres away from the house of the deceased. It was not uncommon for the victim to accompany them, there was no personal prejudice or animosity between the prosecution witness and the accused so that they could be falsely exonerated by the prosecutor's witness. The incident and its statement were supported by medical evidence and cage conditions. He gave a consistent and credible account, he had no personal grudge against the accused, which promptly filed an FIR which rejected the view that the complainant was not present. At the time, the prosecution's witnesses, the deceased and the accused knew each other well, the relative continued the incident, the assailant was nurturing Lalcarra and not so, for the prosecution witnesses in the case. It was difficult to identify the accused FIR. The lanterns were burning at the time of the incident. Wave's three accomplices' acquittal would not benefit them because the courts below found their case distinguished from those convicted. Ocular's account had the help of medical evidence. Because all the dead lost their lives due to fireworks injuries, the prosecution proved successful, which was not seriously challenged. The accused proved his case against the co-accused who was assigned a similar role and was sentenced to life imprisonment. lawer from fb area from Sohawa District Daska lawyer