Find a Lawyer

ALA-UD-DIN versus STATE

Sections 302 (a) and 302 (b) praise the conviction, the defendant did not deny the incident but he gave his own version, therefore, both versions had to be examined at the party place to find out the facts. For the father's father the deceased had given a textual version of the incident which could not be infamous because of his relationship with the victim, as he reasonably explained his presence on the occasion the second half of the incident was free. There was a witness who had no ill will against the accused. In this case, the medical evidence was fully supported for his false interference with the ocular testimony and the motive behind the incident was proved on record, as well as any independent evidence or circumstance of the defendant's defense request. Was not endorsed by. The two defense witnesses in this case were related to the accused and failed to explain their presence at the time of the incident, which was a chance witness witnesses contradicted each other on material points. Unbelievable, the defense's request was also denied by medical evidence, thus, in the sitting room of the accused's father, there was an incident against the accused. The situation worsened during discussions on exchanging warm words between the parties when the accused was ordered by his father to kill the accused, who was in his twenties. I had a single fire which proved that the fatal suspect did not repeat the fire. Worked under the influence of his father, which made it a lesser-known case for lesser punishment. advocate from Hangu lawyer