Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ AHMAD versus STATE

Appraising the evidence of section 2302 (b), the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence. The extra-judicial confession was a piece of guilt that had appeared before two people, one of whom was the relative of the complainant. Whether or not the individuals were in influence where the accused was not designated, it would be unusual to expect extra-ordinary judicial confession to be a crime, and when they were not men of high morality, fear of God. It was alleged that he was committing vandalism to raise money for his own purposes. If the suspects' faces were mixed at the time of the incident, it was not reasonable to expect them to return after the incident and make themselves unsafe, in the presence of witnesses at the time of the collision, at night. The scene, also unnatural and unusual, appears to be another blow to the prosecution's case from the prosecution's statement of a witness who viewed the victim and the accused as a physical altercation, but neither pursued them. Nor did they try to stop the attack. Found in the case where the prosecution failed to make a resort guesthouse, the evidence on file had the death penalty, was not correct, the accused was acquitted and released. advocate for immigration from Akhora Khattak lawyer