Find a Lawyer

SABIR KHAN versus STATE

Defending the Pakistan Penal Code Section 347/34 and the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), sections 17 and 20, the accused was convicted and sentenced to a crime that he complained to the complainant. The road stopped and the vehicle was taken away. In addition, he was sitting with the prosecutor's witness, alleging that he could not prove the ownership of the vehicle seized by any evidence. It was first alleged that in its statements under section 342, the CCP denied the incident by the complainant in its complaint, but later, in the statement under section 340 (2). , The PC suspect confessed to his presence in the attack for a while, although he kept the story moving, although confidence was affected, even though there was a contradiction in the sound. Such contradictions were neither material nor sufficient. To end the whole story of the prosecutor, the complainant himself admitted that the accused had not returned any other vehicle from the circumstances. The vehicle was returned by the accused. 392, the conviction of the accused was maintained under PPC but accordingly the trial court had pronounced the sentence. Pakistan, top advocate family court from Sambrial lawyer