Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RAZZAQUE versus THE STATE

Section 10 (3) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 382 of the Abolition Punishment Act (VII of 1996), Section 3 evidence was corroborated by the statement of the victim, whose statements of eye witnesses Was supported. Medical opinion was also confirmed, the chemical executor's report and identification of the victim accused could not be obtained, so the recovery of stained shalwar from the blood of the affected shalwar, but conducting such a parade only against the false charges of one of the accused. That is, when the witnesses heard the cry of the affected girl, they arrived at the scene and saw the accused who had fled after seeing them and both the girl and the girl who came with the affected girl were present at the court. Did not identify the time that the parade was needed, the prosecutor found the ocular, recovery and medical evidence. Successfully proved your case against the times, there is no controlling situation you can have. Defendants could not prove their innocence even by presenting witnesses. Contrary to the defense evidence, the evidence of the prosecution was weighty and no contradictions and contradictions were identified on the substance of the victim, which was supported by ocular / medical evidence. It is sufficient to maintain the conviction of the accused, while in the present case the statements of the victims were supported by ocular as well as very strong and reliable evidence, with the opinion of the medical expert and the blood of the affected trial court. Under the circumstances, the defendant was properly punished, but the accused was not punished with hood, under section 3 of the Whaling Act 1996, under the termination of the sentence, under the circumstances. pakistani advocates Lasbela lawyer