Find a Lawyer

MAROOF versus THE STATE

On examining the evidence of section 302/34, the complainant permanently charged with the motive which was not only denied by the defense, but the location of the incident was not strictly challenged. And the place where the dead body had not been healed without healing the wounds was not only established. Recovering blood-stained rocks and blood-stained land from both places, but falsely accusing any of the three witnesses of confessing self-defense about the presence of a blood trail between the two places. There was no impetus to impose. It cannot be ruled out simply because of their relationship with the victim, unless they can show their ax for grinding, especially when the victim has no serious enmity with the accused. The witness was there because the incident happened. The home and the deceased entered the asylum in their home where blood was recovered, with evidence of nature, site planning and the recovery of weapons of crime on the occasion of the accused. For whatever reason there is no reason to doubt his ability to speak after the death of a deceased, and to justify his verbal dying declarations and statements of witnesses in this regard was unbelievable. The trial court rejected, accused, was truly punished and punished. property advocates from Yazman Mandi lawyer