He refused to be available for examination without giving a concrete reason for his appreciation, confession, living abroad and employment abroad under Section 302/34 FIR, which led to his being in Pakistan. Was pursuing the case, which raised doubts about the prosecution's realism. The Ocular incident was contradictory and contradictory and the motive plan presented in the FIR was not supported; medical evidence also did not support the prosecution's version while the defendant was acquitted at the time of the incident.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
