Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus THE STATE

The eyewitness testimony of Section 5 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Contempt Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, has testified that it viewed the whole incident of murder in a manner that raised suspicion of the possibility or possibility of the incident. Did not , His testimony found contradictions or contradictions in the material details of the defense and did not show any relevant or interesting testimony. The eyewitness also had sufficient time to identify the assailants. To the extent the prosecution's main features of the case were even fully endorsed by a distraught eyewitness, though he refused to disclose the identity of the attackers * although for other people to replace the original culprits. Eyewitnesses did not show any interest or motivation, so they were accused of being a real attacker. It is. The person who killed the deceased had to face the circumstances lawer from fb area from Taxila lawyer