Find a Lawyer

AKBAR KHAN versus THE STATE

Evidence presented by the prosecution of the testimony of the Sections 302 Criminal Code (V9 1898), sections 161 and 164, has revealed that there was no general evidence to bring the accused to the house and the prosecutor was completely at fault. Depending on the recovery affected. Kalashnikov's preparation by the accused. Experts report positively on the weapons of the victim and the victim's widow's statement about Kalashnikov's weapons, the victim's widow's statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164, no benefit to the CCP investigation. Was not, as it was described under Section 164, Cr. The PC was recorded in the absence of the accused, who was already detained in the case when she did not undergo cross-examination and her statement was based on instability against the accused due to marital disagreement. The investigating officer was already aware of the incident and had a site plan. Initial investigations into the suspect's identity were investigated and the incident was investigated and no further investigation was made to identify the suspect, which led the suspect to the police party during the investigation. Taken, it didn't matter, the positive weapons reports in the situation did not even believe the blanks and rifle experts produced by the accused because 8 days after the weapons expert was sent to the laboratory. The same articles were received in the laboratory and no explanation can be obtained from the prosecution where the vacancy lasted for 8 days. I had a weapon and criminal conduct is transparent so the proof conditions patent advocate from Arifwala lawyer