Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKMAL versus STATE

The provisions of Sections 302 (b) and 324/34 of the evidence, the circumstances and the time to reduce the sentence was not declined, which led to a dispute between the parties, because both sides were admitted. One of the accused persons divorced his wife, who was the complainant's daughter, the complainant had a strong motive to attack the accused, while the accused had no reason to attack the complaining party, medical evidence ocular. According to the evidence, no major contradiction was found between the medical evidence. And the proportional evidence could not benefit the accused because of the large irregularities, especially when the evidence of the prosecutor was supported by the statements of two injured eye witnesses. Didn't challenge. Eyewitnesses who were injured could not be denied, at the time and place of their presence, in particular, when their presence was not seriously challenged by the Defendant at the relevant time and place. The pick up by the defense meeting raised by the accused cannot be accepted as the participation of both the accused cannot be questioned as both have suffered injuries as per their own exposure. Otherwise during the incident, he did not deny his presence at the scene of the incident. Both injured witnesses were present at the time of the incident and they witnessed the incident. The accused established a request for self-defense through his statements. Had failed to do. The prosecution against the two accused did not come in handy, as both sides tried to suppress the fact that the facts when you need a advocate from Lawrence pur lawyer