Find a Lawyer

GHULAM NABI versus THE STATE

The Appellant's name was not listed in the FIR nor the police station on the value of evidence of the Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979, Section 10 (3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6 and 7. The real culprit was given to him by a station house officer. In the challan statement that the appellant was the real culprit, at the time of filing the FIR, the complainant had mistakenly named his brother instead of the appellant's father and the name of the appellant's brother in the challan. Was different Appellant cannot be two brothers of different castes. His name was too obvious for the accused to be a liar for the real culprit; during the course of the trial, the police official did not say a word about the mistake. The official was beyond doubt that the appellant did not represent him as he was not bound by the Advocate Trial Court as a poor person. The police and the local Zamindar Trial Court did not have any difficulty in passing the contents of the challan to the police to come to the rescue of the victim, otherwise, he would have taken this clear stance from the witnesses. That the trial court acted in a malicious way. And proceeded to convict an innocent person without any reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime, but was not confirmed by the evidence, the High Court warned the trial judge, Be careful in the future and refrain from settling the matter, the trial court had set aside the case for prosecution and punishment, and they were acquitted of the charge. patent advocate from Swatmingora lawyer