Find a Lawyer

TAHIR HUSSAIN versus STATE

Section 302/392 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), defining section 20 evidence, the delay in reporting the case to the police station was well explained and any motive for making false allegations of the present accused was merely Content was inconsistent. Contradictions and contradictions regarding the location of the incident, the time of the presence of police officers, the number of police personnel at the petrol pump where the suspects stopped the vehicle in a dispute, the location of the aforementioned petrol pump, its distance from the main road or the police station, As the accused were identified, it was immoral, unnecessary and misunderstood which had no effect on the prosecution's case, all the prosecution witnesses were subjected to long cross-examination, but the accused prosecutor Failure to harm any material object in the trial of the prosecution They were generous and offered a natural and credible explanation of their presence in the PLC, and their evidence also supported the recovery of evidence, as well as any element of doubt in the post-mortem report regarding the moratorium. Both the prosecution and the accused had confessed to the incident, but had given different versions that the prosecutor had examined independent witnesses to prove his case and to confirm the deposition of witnesses through circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's version of the juxtaposition contained in the defense version is accurate and inspires confidence. Yes, while the defensive version does not appeal to the sensible mind, it is alleged that it is meant to be sensible, so it cannot be said that anyone property advocates from Makli lawyer