Find a Lawyer

AHMAD YAR versus STATE

Section 2302/34/3 of the defendants who were applauding the evidence were in possession of the underground land, and in the circumstances of the case it was more understandable that it was the prosecution party who wanted to take over the land and felt depressed. It was likely that the complaining party was attacked. The weapons recovered from the vacancies created by the trial situation have no relation to the weapons recovered from the suspect, which is likely to be the story presented by the suspect, according to a report by the Franz Science Laboratory, when the complaining party The accused was attacked for forcible occupation of the land in the dispute, his sentence cannot be dismissed; two of the three accused, two were either killed or no one was hurt in the legal proceedings. The weapons recovered from the accused have not been compared, though two suspects said one person confessed. Did he worked alone right of self-defense and he made them a licensed rifle recovery, but the prosecution's case is that it did not hurt his hands, a witness of the victim or prosecution. Independent sources have proved that a rifle shotgun was recovered from a third suspect with arms, two suspects taking advantage of suspicion, the verdict was dropped and their decision was dropped. The third suspect was confessingly occupying the land in dispute and the victim lost his life due to the fire that led to him, but it was the victim and his accomplice who were upset and expressed their wish. Wanted to do Syed who occupied the land lawer from fb area from Lahore lawyer