Find a Lawyer

GHULAM FARID versus STATE

Clauses 4 324/34 F and 7 337 F (iii) Testimony of Evidence The benefit of the doubt was not only that the eye witnesses met with each other but also hated the accused and thus interesting evidence that the medical evidence supported the ocular testimony. Not so, but in a similar way. In which the injured witnesses were injured as he described it and his father suspected that the firearms specialist had not been sent for comment from the accused, the result was that the weapon was recovered, especially when detained. No crime was found in defense of the incident. In fact, it may be true that on the occasion of Eid, someone opened fire and some misguided gunmen had targeted the injured witnesses. If enmity between the parties exists as a two-pronged weapon, if one is to harm his opponent. If the delivery is indicated, it may also be the cause of the rash. In the case, the motive part of the story of the prosecution could not be used to endorse the account of the incident. Every suspicion was availed. The accused in favor of the accused were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances. immigration advocate from Chowk Munda lawyer