MUHAMMAD ASIF versus STATE
Although the defendants testified before the trial court, testimony of the prosecution of the testimony of the Section 2302 (b) / Anti 34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), an identification parade was required, as required by law. But, the jail was not monitored. Magistrate police did not receive anything from the accused despite physical remand. There was no evidence other than identification. Before the trial, the accused's two co-accused were different in the case. The accused was identified in the prison parade under the supervision of the Magistrate Prosecution, but he failed to prove his case against the accused beyond any doubt. Rather, suspicion records float at the crime level. The conviction imposed by the trial court was extended to the benefit of the suspect and he was acquitted of the charge against him.
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
solicitors from Adda Shaiwala lawyer
