Find a Lawyer

QASSIM versus THE STATE

He was alien to the prosecution despite the fact that he was accused of appreciating the provisions of Section 302 (a) / 392/397/398, and the witness listed the police on the telephone based on information conveyed by the prosecution's witness and None of the two were prosecutors. Witnesses who allegedly witnessed the incident came forward to file an FIR. In the absence of an identity test, there was no credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime; the evidence for the recovery of the weapons of the criminals is fraught with crime, the crime and weapons recovered from the place of abduction have been recovered. The firearm specialist was sent out approximately two and a half months after the recovery and both articles were sent to the firearm specialist simultaneously. Such facts presented a ballistic report of any low result to support the prosecution's case. It was reported in the prosecution's case that two different weapons were used. At the commission of the crime, while only one TT pistol was recovered and it is reported that the firearm specialist had shown that two bullets were fired, the pistol said that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses was unnatural, according to one of the prosecutors. The witness, who himself was also the victim of the robbery, did not report the crime to the police, but went to his house quietly in view of the delay. In filing an FIR, if the accused is not identified. The delay in the ballistic report and the prosecution's version and the apparent lack of recovery of the weapons of the crime, the seriousness of the prosecution violated the prosecutor's case, the prosecution was not brought to the house of the accused, sentencing verdict and sentencing list of advocates from Trinda Mohd Pannah lawyer