Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RASHID versus THE STATE

The complainant, expressing appreciation of the Pakistan Penal Code Sections 392/34 and 353, had clearly stated in the FIR that on opening the door, he found a woman standing there with two boys whose names were later known. The defendant specifically named the accused in the FIR along with his parents, but the source of information about the names of the suspects was not disclosed, which revealed that either the FIR's The contents were mistyped by the police or the complainant mistyped the police officer. During the recording of the FIR, the accused or his (complainant) never knew that the identity of the accused was kept in the parade with 20/25 other persons and the accused was apprehended by the complainant, but the complaint was made. The manufacturer did not say where in the statement the identity parade was located. Was held and even before the magistrate or the court prosecutor failed to inspect the magistrate on the facts of the identification before the trial, the complainant was not examined nor the accused counsel, despite the court's eyewitness testimony. An arrest warrant was sought for identification, a charge of confiscating the articles was made and produced in the presence of another witness, but was not disclosed by this other witness. Prosecutor alleged that no explanation was given for the arrest of the accused when the articles recovered from the accused, Grass was not given an identity test in the presence of Mabi, the trial court did not consider the entire evidence, Prosecutors have put elements of suspicion in this case. tax advocates from Turbat lawyer