Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUNAS KHAN versus THE STATE

Section 13 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), sections 435 and 439, the testimony and testimony of the witnesses was unreliable, and their testimony about the truth was expressed and the prosecutor stood on his feet and committed the crime. There was no material contradiction, whether there was any material contradiction or not, and the statements of those witnesses were contradictory, but they were consistent in this regard. The time and place of the rehabilitation and the manner in which it took effect said that witnesses had been subjected to prolonged scrutiny, but nothing could be obtained by the defense to refute their statements. Nor was Malala found that the investigation was straightforward and honest and that no specific defects or weaknesses were identified in the evidence by cross-examination of the intellect. No delay in filing the nesses FIR was denied. Was not enough to affect the trial because it was a tendency that people were reluctant to testify, The review was rejected against the trial court's decision, the defendant had already been sentenced, reducing the sentence convicted for the facts and circumstances. female advocates from Kashmore lawyer