Find a Lawyer

NOOR ZAMAN ALIAS MANEY versus STATE

Sections 2302 (b) and 4 324 of the evidence were appreciated in the house of the complainant at the time of 20.00 hours, which was the son of the accused and the son of the accused, there was no question of identifying the mistakes, in which case the complainant Brother, while the prosecution had another witness. His nephew had agreed to his statements before his statements were made when his real mother was charged with trial for Killer I Amd. The complainant also accused the victim of trying his life. At one of the complainants, their presence was natural at that time. It was alleged that he was the sole accused of murdering his real mother and trying for the life of his brother / complainant and there was no previous rivalry with the complainant's accused, making false accusations except the real culprit. Or alternatively the presence of the complainant and the prosecution's other witness is very stable. The summary and both of them gave a permanent and material account of the incident and their statements on cross-examination examination cannot be extracted. Both of these testimony can be relied upon by the complainant explaining the delay in the investigation. The report presented by another prosecutor's testimony was fully corroborated by the medical evidence of the Ocular Account and on the occasion the recovery of one of the 12 bore shotguns and the knife was established beyond any doubt. , The accused has been absconding for a very long period of six years and no plausible explanation of his fate has been disclosed, but the accused never appeared until his arrest and his death. when you need a advocate from Kotli lawyer