Articles 8 308 and 1 331 of the law martyrdom (1984, 1984 of 1984), Section Q 46 Qatil is not responsible for the accused. What. The trial court proved to the defendant that the prosecution's witnesses supported the prosecution and that the defense lawyer had failed to shake his evidence or contradicted the evidence of the prosecutor. The complainant had reaffirmed the facts mentioned in the FIR and his brother had confirmed the evidence to the investigating officer. Earlier, the trial court had detailed in its evidence all the evidence collected during the investigation. The medical officer has excluded in his evidence that he examined the injuries and caused serious burn injuries and asthma. Announced his death from and during interrogation, he denied that he had committed suicide failed to present the proper lawyer's record for the accused, change the name of the accused whom the complainant falsely accused the accused Wanted to capture the defense lawyer had failed to identify the enmity or for any reason prosecutors' witnesses were guilty He was forced to give false evidence when he did not intend with the complaining party. The litigation case was based on the victim's statement, which was his dying statement that the law could be entered under Article 46 (1) of the 1984 Act to help the courts find the Justice Investigating Officer properly. Who recorded these recordings. The defendant's statement fully supported the prosecution's version, and their evidence did not support the testimony.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
