Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus SAFDAR

Appeals against bad delays in filing a case against Section 302/34 of the Criminal Code (CRPC) sections 417 and 161 of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860) were not considered satisfactory, and it was proved that The FIR was filed after consultation and consideration was not observed by the complainant and on the occasion the presence of the prosecution witness was also suspicious The prosecution's witness behavior was unnatural and his statement was not affected by trust. The complainant had argued that the PCP alone was sufficient to record the statement of the victim, recorded under section 161. It has nothing to do with the legal proposal by treating it as a declaration of dying without the consent of the independent source, but in the present case it seemed nothing more than a literal version of the FIR and the investigating officer Alja did not ask the magistrate to ask for a record. The reasons for the testimony of the injured witness by the trial court for acquittal of the accused were supported by the record and scrutiny of the evidence presented by the trial court, which was in accordance with the criteria and principles set by the High Courts, the absence of reasons. In the proceedings, the trial court may not interfere with the jurisdiction under Section Cr1717 (?), CRPC, for the trial of illegal advertising of evidence at trial. lawer from fb area from Kahuta lawyer