Find a Lawyer

GULBAZ versus MUHAMMAD AYUB

The testimony of sections 302, 324, 364, 148 and 149, the benefit of the doubt, was the rise of contradictions between the medical and the accountants, and said that the contradictions ruled the whole matter of prosecution as far as the two accused were concerned. ? No effective role was declared in the FIR and the allegations against them were merely aerial shootings, in the backdrop of a previous enmity between the parties, which stated that the two accused were present when interested and undisclosed witnesses. So they couldn't keep up. The Ocular Account Postmortem Report stated that the Ocular Account submitted by the complainant was completely negated, as far as the third accused is concerned, that the accused was also found innocent during the investigation and was kept in column number 2 of the challan. It was recommended that the issue be dismissed and the dispute was between the parties on the passing of the dispute. Both sides did not speak. They proved the truth before the court saying that keeping both versions relatively ju, the plea of the accused party was high. It seems criminal the matter was a free fight between the parties in which the role of each accused was racked up. According to Ard, a decision was to be made on the touchstone of the available evidence. Prosecution failed to prove their case against allowing the appeal against the three accused in criminal cases and was acquitted of the charge by giving them the benefit of the doubt. Was declared hurt. The role of hitting the victim's left leg with a 12-bore gun was assigned to the defendant in the ocular account with the help of medical evidence, appearing in the section 302 (c) of the PPC. tax advocates from Larkana lawyer