Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus STATE

The testimony of the prosecution witnesses stated that the alleged derogatory remarks were made in conversation with another prosecutor's witness, but they did not. The prosecution's witness denied that. As stated in the FIR, the statement of one of the prosecution witnesses was not available and there were clear contradictions in the statements of the two witnesses of the prosecution, failing to prove the case against the accused without a doubt. Otherwise, Section 196 CCPC was affected because an FIR was lodged by a person who was neither authorized nor by the Central or Provincial Government under section 295A, B. , Under C, the essential components of a crime were declared compulsory. Was it alleged that any class of persons should act on it with the intention of defaming the religion, it is obligatory that the people of any class consider such destruction, harm or defamation as an insult to their religion. , The evidence on the record does not prove that any derogatory word was intended to offend by the accused, evidence on record shows that the complainant and the accused had something against each other. Cases which also raise suspicion that the complainant was included in the present case along with the intention of the complainant The possibility of making false accusations of the accused cannot be ruled out, in which case the confidence of the accused is not encouraged by the prosecutor's leadership. The trial court convicted the accused lawer from fb area from Chowk Munda lawyer