Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus STATE

The benefit of the doubt as to the testimony of section 2 (2 (b) evidence was filed about sixteen hours the next day after the FIR incident when the police station was only six miles away from the spot, also complaining to the contents of the FIR) The confidant had not only acknowledged that there were close associates and interested witnesses, but also witnesses of the occasion that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was denied in the trial and the accompanying accused were acquitted. He was also declared to be an effective role in the execution of death and his success was never challenged nor was there any independent crossing. The suspect was available on record to convict, nothing was on record to link the suspect to the commission of the crime, some part of the story was denied Medical evidence was unacceptable to the witness testimony during any investigation. No weapon was recovered from the crime scene, and police seized it on the spot, though, according to the FIR, four suspects - H himself - were suspected of firing at the scene of the incident. The man was lacking reliable evidence coming from irrelevant sources, in which case the suspect would be given the benefit of the doubt. He was and was acquitted. Under the circumstances best advocate from Noorpur nooranga lawyer