Find a Lawyer

WAHID IQBAL versus THE STATE

Arts 22 and 2 (c) Ordinance of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII VI of 1979), Sections 10 (3) and 11 accuse a girl of abduction, abduction or kidnapping for compulsion and testimony The Parade of Identity Testing was a clear evidence of the principles laid down in court by a witness in Article 2 (c) of the Convention Evidence, 1984, and the identification by a witness in the test parade was still in nature. Where the accused did not know about the witness before, and as such, the witness could only get a glimpse of the accused, conducting a test identification parade was necessary and necessary because usually After the events, the statements of witnesses were recorded in the courts and, therefore, it is likely that a witness may not have been mistakenly named or identified, but the identity of an accused in the case may have been identified for the first time. There was evidence, therefore, that a very weak character was considered to be natural and in order to convict the prosecutor, it should be proved that the witness was properly and properly identified by the witness at the time of the presence of the accused and until then The purpose cannot be achieved unless the evidence is presented by the prosecution. The trial was able to provide answers to certain questions such as how long the witness had kept the accused in witnessing, at what distance, in what light, and in which case the witness was stopped. Have ever seen before, how often and only occasionally, did he have any special reason to remember the accused, etc. On the first occasion, the accused was not given an identity test because man has his own limitations and time. Passing jobs for fresh advocates from Saidu Sharif lawyer