Find a Lawyer

FAYYAZ AHMAD versus THE STATE

Section 2 30b (b) after the testimony of the eyewitness to the testimony was not able to identify the accused because of his face and his name was not known until the inquiry report was prepared, thus establishing the Ocular version. I was unsuccessful At the close of the incident, my identity about the actual crime of the roadside suspect did not indicate that he was coming from the complainant's house after committing the crime, additional prosecution witnesses testified. Had confessed that he had not been arrested, neither had the accused presented it to the police, and his unnatural and impossible behavior suggested Or that the accused had been acquitted of the circumstances before any additional judicial confession. immigration advocates contact from Rahwali lawyer