Find a Lawyer

ABDUL LATIF versus STATE

Section 2302 (b) Evidence Testimony The benefit of the doubt is that the allegedly used hatchet recovered from the accused 50 days after the incident, it was not possible, even after such a long time, that the hatchet was still The suspect was also identified as having a blood stain. In the circumstances, the prosecution did not present any concrete evidence in support of the motive, until the investigating officer concluded that the prosecution had to prove the evidence. No evidence was presented for where the victim's body was extracted. 12/14 feet in depth, it was not possible for any one person, such as the body of a complainant to be brought out of a dead body that had been stained with sludge, eyewitnesses did not prove to be present on the spot. The difference was found between. And the medical evidence did not prove to be motivating and the recovery was suspicious. The prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused, in favor of the accused who was suspected and he was acquitted by the trial court against the accused and the crime Was put aside and released online advocate from Vehari lawyer