Find a Lawyer

MALIK MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Section 337A (i), 337F (ii), (ii), (v), 148 and 149 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), appeal against a bad FIR in a Section 417 case with a delay of two days. Was entered. The trial court found that the evidence was contradictory at the time of the alleged incident by eyewitnesses, two independent eyewitnesses, who were available at the scene, were not presented by the prosecution, during the prosecution. The eyewitness testimony presented was very close to each other, for various reasons, the presence of the complainant at the scene at the relevant time, on record, was quite suspicious and also its conduct. It was impossible and it was supplemented with unnatural statements from eyewitnesses. Despite the material contradictions, both the witnesses did not support the cross-examination case, given the reporting date of the case to the police and the place where the case was reported to the police. The version offered by the accused by the local police was not properly examined. Reports of injuries received to the victims were not submitted by the local police X-ray, were not presented by the radiologist prosecution, medical evidence contradicted the nature of the ocular account and was injured by a prosecution witness. Subsequent statements showed that it was the complaining party who was the assailant, that the prosecution had failed to prove his case against the accused beyond suspicion, there were no reasons to record the accused's success in the trial. The merits of a lawsuit, either arbitrary or perverse Pakistan, top advocate family court from Wana lawyer