JAN MUHAMMAD versus STATE
According to the Criminal Code of Conduct (CCPC), according to the FIR, no blood was found on the basis of mere suspicion; the licensed gun of the accused in the trial was not stopped nor was it in his special possession. Fifteen days after the incident, the deceased detained the accused in his statement under Section 16464, the PC claims that he has identified the moonlight and identified the moonlight and footprints. Identity was too fragile There was no reason to check the identification parade or footprint of the delay, which was presented by the prosecutor, who was in the second Reggae was defective in many cases. No private independent witnesses were examined or cited by the prosecution in this case. The accused had no motive to prove the crime, reasonably available to believe that the accused was not the perpetrator of the crime. Further investigation is needed against this and in this case, as contemplated under section 497 (2), the CCP accused have been admitted.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Guddu lawyer
