Find a Lawyer

AFSAR KHAN versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Testimony of Evidence Both the main witnesses, the police officers, made a permanent statement on the material points and the accused failed to identify any contradiction in their statements. Both said the witnesses had collected four kilograms. Recovery of two kilograms of seizure is supported. At the date, time and place the accused stated that the prosecution's testimony on the oath was sufficient to link the accused to the commission of the crime, the defense could not prove why the police would falsely include the suspect, especially when the raid took place. No one from the party had any enmity against him, so the statements of the prosecution witnesses referred to the accused, which were recorded almost a year and a half after the incident, were so minor that, on their basis, The trial could not rule out such small discrepancies as unsuccessful. Time-bound, the trial court's precise decision that was based on the evidence on the record, such minor contradictions should be set aside. In such cases it cannot be inferred that the police witness The liars were that the free privateers were not called to witness the recovery because it was affected by the public place, and the whole litigation case had collapsed. Was charged with no substance. It has been alleged that in addition to some minor errors, no serious defect can be identified in the investigation which does not affect the authenticity of the trial. The accused could not find anything on the record to prove that he was falsely implicated by the police for his performance. Or chemical inspection Pakistan, top advocate family court from Sialkot lawyer