Find a Lawyer

SALAH-UD-DIN versus STATE

In its statement filed in the Section 392 Evidence Testimony case, the complainant accused the two unidentified persons of commissioning the crime, and admitted in the investigation that he had identified the accused at the time of the incident and that the accused were not persons. Had taken the money from the complainant's shop. The complainant saw the accused while in police custody and after the arrest the accused was brought to the evidence store of the complainant prosecutor. According to the material details, it was contradictory and full of suspicion and the defense evidence. Even in the absence, conviction could not result in sentencing. The defense fully described a separate episode and a version of the prosecution, even if both versions were presented by one accused and the other case presented by the prosecutor, in the juxtaposition. If considered, then the version of the accused seems more respectable and closer to conviction and truth. While the prosecution's version was completely wrong, the prosecutor's case was doubled and the contradictions were to be based on the evidence on record, and in the present case, there was no reasonable doubt of the evidence that the accused was the perpetrator of the prosecution. Failure to do so, the sentence and sentence against them were set aside. And they were acquitted of the charges and were released when you need a advocate from Okara lawyer