Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD KHAN ALIAS MAMMAN versus STATE

Although section 2302 (b) was defined overnight, evidence of the defendant was easily identified by the complainant and other witnesses, since he had been at the complainant's residence for the past four years. And satisfactorily explained the delay in filing his quarterly FIR, the complainant was a natural witness and his presence at night and his presence were reliable reasons when approaching the location of the incident. Other witnesses were present. The relevant time was also admissible, which had no reason to falsely implicate the accused even if the two witnesses mentioned above were considered, yet the lone statement given by the complainant was sufficiently self-sufficient to the accused. It was enough to convict the accused, whose evidence was denied by the motive and evidence of medical evidence that the deceased woman was married to the accused on the ground / physical eviction together with the accused, on which the accused would be disappointed. It was alleged that the accused acted under the command of his elder brother and that the incident happened about a decade ago and that the accused was sentenced to death. He was. In such a final stage, punishment was not appropriate and the accused's heirs were retained with the increase in compensation. ask a advocate free from Mari Indus lawyer