Find a Lawyer

KARIM versus THE STATE

Definition of Evidence 3/4 of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act (XXV of 1997), Articles 6/7/8. The statements of the prosecution's two witnesses, who were police officers, were full of contradictions, weaknesses and contradictions. The courts were not under the compulsion of law. Blindly accept such controversial statements, and even in a case involving the death penalty, such statements cannot be made the basis of the accused's conviction. The prosecution's witnesses have revealed that the investigation into the case has not been properly and fairly investigated. The case was highly suspicious and evidence of alleged recovery violated the requirements of section 103, CR PC and was not associated with the recovery process despite earlier information and the availability of independent witnesses departing from the police station in the Daily Diary. It was not shown that the forbidden truck was caught at night and there was no electricity leakage. The shops were open and many people were there, but they were not asked to participate in the recovery process, saying Ones was always in the prosecution to prove the defendant's crime, which he had to prove was the suspect. Who committed the crime. And the prosecution was freely charged that, despite the fact that there was no hostility or malice or intent to falsely impeach the witnesses from the police witnesses, themselves, it was to prevent the case. There was no strict condition that whatever the prosecution had alleged. It should be trusted without asking for the support of any evidence that the accused is charged directly with heroin. ask a advocate free from Dijkot lawyer