Find a Lawyer

HAMMAD versus THE STATE

Article 392 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX 1965), Definition of Section 13 Evidence The main case under section 392, PPC against the three accused was that they entered the complainant's house and the articles referred to in the FIR The detainees were robbed and a dagger was recovered from two of the three accused, witnesses of the main events made statements according to the FIR and there was no material contradiction between their statements before the police. And there is no reason in court why the accused would be falsely implicated. The facts of the retrieval of the prosecution witnesses corroborated the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and during the course of the investigation, the accused were proved guilty as well as in the circumstances the main case against the accused was fully proved, while the two accused. Who was arrested on the spot under Section 13. The West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, had no reason for the police to obtain information about the spy, then raided the premises the next day, arresting the accused and exporting the weapons in question to the accused, a public witness in this case. He did not appear to support the case, in which the prosecution's case stated that the suspects were not released from suspicion, the accused had filed against them. Granted and they were acquitted of the charges under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 famous high court advocate from Dera Murad Jamali lawyer