Find a Lawyer

NASRULLAH versus STATE

Section 230 (b) / Property 34 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (4) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 Proof of evidence collected by police The seals in the parcel, not in a place that was under the special control of the accused and were generally available, were excluded from consideration, the motorcade owned by one of the prosecution's witnesses. The other prosecutor allegedly recovered from the witness's home, if, at the time of the recovery of the aforesaid employee, he was not., At the home, not later examined by the police. How was the vehicle parked in his house and it was also known who brought the prosecution witness there in his examination. The chief stated that there were two accused in the house mentioned above, but did not show his presence in the recovery memo. Gone, no witnesses from the public were involved in the recovery of the motorcar, nor could I recover from the arrest of two suspects from the same house - in the absence of convincing evidence that the two suspects were present and arrested. , Prosecution against two accused will not be forwarded, arrest of accused was open to serious doubt The date of his arrest and the whereabouts of his arrest are not certain; the physical relationship of the two witnesses with the motorist was suspicious. The confession cannot be made a crime under the threat, after the delay of nine days, the confessions of the accused were recorded. And no explanation was given by the police about the delay attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Lakimarwat lawyer