Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus GHAZANFAR ALI

Articles 302, 448 and 148/149 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Constitutional Laws Enforcement Act (IX of 1974), sections 4 and 5, are not only related to the complaining party, but the witnesses who spoke highly hostile to the accused. Only one contradicted one another about all the material details of the case, but their evidence was full of inherent defects and weaknesses, throwing a deep cloud of doubt at the truth of the prosecutor's case and with it. The Ballistic Expert has not received any legal notice. Even the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case, the complainant's testimony was not credible, as he was involved in the FIR and in most of his statement in court, with the seven defendants involved but eventually admitted that Only one accused, who was his enemy, was responsible for his husband's complaint of extreme interest and hatred with the accused. The omission of other weaknesses in his evidence in this case was enough to make his statement extremely unsafe and untrustworthy, after which one of the victims lay on a bed with a blood clot on his leg. , While his other shoe was missing. Neither the investigating officer prepared a blood shoe recovery memorandum at this location, nor did it provide any explanation as to where the other shoe went, evidence available on record suggests that the incident did not. Didn't happen in style anymore. Claimed by the prosecution prosecutor, who was unable to prove his case against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the circumstances. female advocates from Thana Bula Khan lawyer