Find a Lawyer

HABIBULLAH ALIAS BHUTTO versus THE STATE

Definition of section 21 (2) of the evidence was against the accused in that he protected the robbers and their accomplices, and filed section 21 (2) of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Ahad) Ordinance 1979 against the accused. That had been dealt with by crime. Riot or rapist witnesses were not told anywhere about the conviction that when the defendants by the accused were involved in cattle theft, otherwise the decorators would not be involved in the theft of cattle and the livestock. The thieves cannot be called robbers because the robbers were dangerous persons for whom the penal provisions in PPC were different from the thieves. Police and the trial court committed crimes against the property under section 21 (2) of the Ordinance 1979. Did not consider the definition and components of the crime under consideration. Under Section 21 (2), the accused was misplaced and misplaced as there was no component of the offense. The trial of the accused under false and false charges made the entire trial unsuccessful. None of the people whose cattle were allegedly stolen did not appear as a witness, but the state's lawyer admitted that not only was the allegation against the accused illegal, but the trial on evidence. The court reached that conclusion. The record was false and unreasonable and did not support the trial court's decision that failed to establish a case against the accused, the accused was sentenced and sentenced, jobs for fresh advocates from Khuzdar lawyer