Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AJMAL ABBAS versus STATE

The testimony of sections 302 (b) / 149, 324/149 and 148 of the testimony benefit of the suspect was named in the FIR, with seven weapons equipped with sophisticated weapons, but the victim suffered two firearms wounds to his body. It did not clear any crime. The spot was completely damaged. The spot was not occupied by the police. Medical evidence was contradictory with the eyewitness and the closest relevant witness should have been present on the spot, the victim of the accused party, but none of them. There was not a single scratch on his body but the complainant was a resident of the village which was three miles away from the incident and despite the incident, the incident took place in a densely populated area but not a single witness was mentioned in the area. No witnesses were examined except for the complaint that was given or submitted by the prosecution. The cooperation of Northern as a rule of hostile rule regarding the murder cases between the Yen and the detachment was necessary, but there was no free association in this case, the accused's participation in the case was suspicious and he was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances. ?????? famous lower court advocate from Nilore lawyer