Find a Lawyer

SAFDAR HAYAT versus STATE

Sections 302/34 and 452/34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (2) (a) Testimony of Evidence Eyewitnesses were injured during the incident, their presence proved, such witnesses supported the story of the prosecution. ? And the testimony against the accused and his testimony affected the trust that there were minor contradictions here and could not shake the truth of the prosecution's version in the evidence alone, so the accused's clear motive was to get the complaining party out of the plot. And they tried to do it. There was an incident on the day by committing the aggression and taking the law into his own hands, and there was no previous hostility from the accused to the prosecution's witnesses. The accused failed to prove that he was in possession of the plot in the dispute. And the complainant wanted her to be forcibly expelled, thus prosecuting her case against the accused, who had committed Sarai's murder. The cold-blooded woman's decision to be acquitted by the trial court in the case of their joint intent was not based on the principles enforced by the Supreme Court for the safe administration of criminal justice but was surprising and on the face of the record perfectly. Was. Because of the misinterpretation and misinterpretation of the evidence of the most natural and convincing prosecution, the High Court had rightly accepted the State Appeal for the execution of the murder offender and the accused by the High Court. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court. Accordingly best law firm from Kalam lawyer