SARFRAZ ALIAS MATTU versus STATE
Section 7 (c) of the Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Section 5 law testimony (10 of 1984), Article 22 evidence was put into the identification test more than ten months after the incident by the witness. The accused was not identified. Regarding his role in the commission of the crime magistrate, the identity parade, in its cross-examination, admitted that the accused had raised objections before the identity parade that he had already been shown to the witnesses in the police station, such identification parade. Has no significance In the eyes of the law and the suspects were identified before the trial court after such a long time, but no evidence could be found to link the accused to the commission of the crime. The suspect was taken advantage of and acquitted. Under the circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
divorce advocates from Shakargarh lawyer
