Find a Lawyer

HAMEER versus THE STATE

The testimony of Section 13D testimony was that both the prosecution witnesses who were police officers were independent and natural witnesses because they did not leave any police station and there was no enmity between the accused in connection with the investigation of the crime and said that the police officers were allowed. There is no purpose or reason with. Both the prosecution's witnesses were investigated by the accused for falsifying the witnesses, but no other question was raised by the witnesses except the denial of the accused's involvement in the case, in both cases the prosecution's two witnesses. Unexpected evidence was evidence of both prosecutors' testimony that was natural. And reliably relied upon by the trial court, the accused claimed that he was not represented by a lawyer before the trial court because he could not engage with a lawyer. The explanation was given, otherwise the Advocate was also accused of giving too much time to engage the lawyer, but he did not do so to take advantage of the aforementioned opportunity, the accused could not be prosecuted for default. Is. The prosecution's evidence found no major concessions or omissions; apart from two contradictions, one had to produce unpublished entries in the journal about the departure of the police from the police station and the other was not to seal. At this point, the full proof of the property cannot be called aside, except for two minor contradictions, especially when the statements of the prosecution witnesses become inconsistent even when the sale of the property was necessary in the case of the crime. Use of weapons is a crime ask a advocate free from Tarmatan lawyer