MUHAMMAD SAEED ALIAS SEEDU versus STATE
Testimonies 302/149 and 148 of the testimony of the witnesses failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for their presence, and such incidents which were not found there were contradictory to the witnesses regarding the incident. The witnesses were irrational and interested, and they belonged to the same party and were involved in a number of matters, and their former members lacked the confidence to maintain the conviction on capital charges. There was no compelling evidence to support the ocular testimony, which in such cases recovered theft. The main suspect was highly suspected that the motive was not verified by any interesting witness, thus the prosecution failed to produce satisfactory evidence on record to bring the accused home from house to house, Was not free from doubt.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
jobs for advocates from Dadu lawyer
