Find a Lawyer

MST. ATIA versus STATE

The appeal against the testimony of the prosecution of the prosecution of section 10 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), section 452 law in evidence (10 of 1984), Article 76 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), section 417 bureaucrats testified in all material details. Statement was fully supported. A long distance test was also targeted, but nothing could be extracted by the defense, so critical scrutiny of Baret's unclean decision showed that there was no reading of the material on the record and a misrepresentation. The result was, in addition, the trial court's denial of the prosecution's story was not merely artificial but also restricted to minor contradictions / contentions that naturally arose between the witnesses. The legal requirement for the exclusion of the secondary evidence was legally posted in accordance with Article by76 of the Law Sha testimony, rather than completely misconceived for legal reasons, regarding Lady's inspection of the victim, 1984, the victim's report, which was controversial evidence of the testimony of the victim and witnesses, was not specifically accepted by the trial court. While the defense raised no objection to the evidence of the Medico Legal Certificate, another controversial piece of evidence that was heard by the trial court was the Chemical Examiner's report, which showed that the victim The anus and the pelvis have been found stained with semen. And the Blood Trial Court also went on to point out the reasons for not accepting the prosecution's story in a law that was not only wrong, but that the trial was a deliberate attempt by both prosecutors. Exclude general testimony of witnesses immigration advocates from Usta Mohammad lawyer