Find a Lawyer

ASAL MUHAMMAD versus THE STATE

Section 302/34 Review of Evidence The recovery of vacancies from the accused's home cannot be considered as substantive evidence unless the matching arms recovered from the accused are taken by eye witnesses. And their statements are not true witnesses. Not only were there conflicting views, but also the FIR and medical reports filed on material points, so it was not proven that the prosecution had filed a complaint with one of the defendants as per the cross report. The accused has been charged in this way. Since the false case could not confirm the ocular evidence, which was not credible by itself and the presence of eyewitnesses could not be proved on the spot, the prosecution failed to prove its charge against the accused beyond any shadow of a charge. Accordingly, they became evil advocate from Sakardu lawyer