Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IMRAN THROUGH SHABBIR AHMAD MUKHTAR versus STATE

The testimony of Section 2 (2 (b)) was the testimony of the witnesses of the incident and there was no enmity against the accused. The fact that the witness was an employee of the witness was not evidence to affect his conviction. In his examination, the chief had supported the prosecution's case against the accused, but he had finally given his leave in the investigation and eventually made a statement before the trial court that the accused was compromised, because the agreement was incomplete. The victim's brothers and sisters did not raise the crime with the accused, according to the other two eyewitnesses at the time of the incident. Existence was established, which led to the conviction of the testimony, which had the full support of the forensic science laboratory through medical evidence about the pistol. Recovery from the defendant's offer was a positive delay in sending an empty letter of offense. The pistol retrieval at the forensic science laboratory may have been due to negligence by the investigating officer and no injuries were attributed to the witnesses' account, which has been charged against the accused and proved that the co-accused was acquitted. Was done. Only Lalkaris was involved in the case on the charge of collecting and the trial court could investigate the grain from the shaft, the deceased person was charged with only one injury in which the accused parties joined each other. Was known and interrelated. A false identity may have arisen and there was no question of an alternative us immigration advocates from Yazman Mandi lawyer