Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE

Sections 7 and 10 (3) appreciate not only the complainant, but also the eyewitness in this case, but the statement of the victim, who has been dumb since birth, was just as important because she had a very natural Statement. It was just as important as he made a very material statement that the mother of the affected girl had taken the girl to the field and identified the suspect (the boy) with his finger pointing at her as she was dumb. The affected girl could not be involved as a young and disabled child. The defendant also falsely endorsed the prosecution's evidence by the second witness, as Tye claimed that the accused was fleeing near the scene, which proved that the suspect was the most important witness at the time of the incident. Which was clearly in his statement. It turned out that the victim was subjected to the report of an adulterous doctor, the report of the chemical auditor accused was assisted, she was 14/15 years old at the age of 8 and was an eighth-grade Lenton View student although always youngsters and students. But in the present case, the most egregious crime was committed to a child who was born mute, physically and mentally criminally released from a rape victim. Already sentenced to five years and depending on his age, the accused is convicted under the Offense Hood Ordinance 1979. I was under the 7 and 10 (3), but his sentence was less than five years, three years RI RI attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Gohar Ghoushti lawyer