NAIMAT ULLAH versus THE STATE
The convictions of Sections 9A and 9B, there was no confusion about the identity of the accused accused in the lack of evidence testimony, especially when the day-to-day raiding proceedings were examined at length for the prosecution's testimony but The statement was not inconsistent with the statements of the other prosecution witnesses, both statements of the recovery witnesses were consistent and reinforced the prosecution's version The Chemical Examiner's report is a controversial piece of evidence, while the defense version thereafter It was thought that the accused could not do so. Prove the enmity with the police that the accused has been proven guilty, but the accused has already passed his sentence, and in his view his sentence was reduced.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
tax advocates from Raiwind lawyer
