Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUSTAFA versus THE STATE

The value of the provisions of Sections 279 and 337G was not designated in the FIR for Cage Rash or theft by negligence because the person driving the truck at the time of the incident record did not say who the accused was in this case. Was involved. The accused did not know the person personally and the person who was driving the truck at the time of the incident fled the scene. In this case, an identification parade was not held so that the accused could be positively convicted as the person who was actually the truck. Was running The timing of the incident was not sufficient to control the witnesses' finger-pointing by the witnesses during the trial that took place 4/5 years after the incident, because it was not sufficient to automatically control the case. During the period they had ample opportunities not only during the interrogation but also in the first phase of the trial before the trial court. list of advocates from Rahimyar Khan lawyer