Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANEEF versus THE STATE

The Pakistan Penal Code section 392 definition of evidence was not against the complainant's sole direct evidence other than the direct evidence against the accused to link them to the crime; the main evidence of a bank manager was that on the day of the incident he was The accused was seen on the charge of stealing the complainant's car. He committed bribery in his bank manager The identity of the accused was not affiliated with the parade It cannot be said with certainty that those who said that the bank manager was seen using a stolen car, Accusations were made and no one else, especially when the suspects were not previously known. The sole evidence of the complainant who otherwise proved to be a dishonest person and who had shown negligence by the sanctification of the oath to which he had made a statement in court, the uncontested complainant stated in the FIR There were two of them, while earlier in their evidence the court raised the number of offenders from two to four without giving any reasonable explanation for such improvement. The complainant of such improvement had no motive other than to tell the truth. The statement of the complainant cannot be relied on in any way if the complainant's statement is not considered in the situation. So, there will be no evidence to link the accused to the crime. He was acquitted on a satisfactory basis for maintaining the conviction of the accused advocates from Shakargarh lawyer