Find a Lawyer

DEEDAR ALI versus STATE

The West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, did not have any independent advisor related to the fact of the receipt of the testimony of Section 13D, although the place of recovery is dilapidated, the property / arms recovered from the accused were not recovered. The Ballistic Expert was also shown no weapon for its report and at the time of its inspection under Section 342, CRPP VPN was allegedly recovered from the accused and not by the Ballistic Expert for its report. All the prosecution matter depends on what was sent. After entering the journal under which the prosecution had established its case that the police party had left the police station to patrol and found the accused unarmed, but said that at the trial The entry was not made after the break in which he was given the benefit of the doubt. Conditions lawer from fb area from Tharparkar lawyer