Find a Lawyer

AYUB KHAN versus STATE

Section 386 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 20 was directly designated on charges of defining evidence and the complaint filed immediately for the complaint was filed by the prosecution. The other witness made a full charge against the accused. Long and investigative inquiries, but nothing can be found to corroborate their testimony, both witnesses had agreed in full on all the key features of this case, and to exclude their testimony. No reason has been disclosed, especially when he is accused of being an accused. The evidence was there to establish the guilt of the accused, there is no contradiction of the name in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, nor can it be identified. All witnesses made permanent statements and supported and affirmed each other's material points; the prosecution had nothing to offer other witnesses. do with this case because the prosecution was not obliged to present all the witnesses in this case because it was the standard nor the quantity that would have made the difference in the prosecution case and the charge was stayed for more than seven months. ? In the circumstances distinguished from the role assigned to acquittal of the accused in the trial, the conviction of the accused in the circumstances was truly punished. pakistani advocates Kasur lawyer