Find a Lawyer

STATE versus FAZALUR REHMAN

Section 171717 Appellate Code (XLV of 1860), Appeal Against Section 324 Eviction To convict an individual on a capital charge, the evidence must be of high quality and good quality, which was not available in the present case, the prosecution originally considered It was known that the prosecution was primarily to establish a crime against the accused beyond the shadows. The judgment returned by the trial court for the purpose of sentencing by bringing credible, reliable and integrated evidence was a fair decision based on reasonable, fair and legal testimony on which the evidence on the record was legally defined. Was. Whether the accused was fictitious or without evidence, the trial court's evidence was justified and properly appreciated by the trial court in order to secure the termination of the state / prosecution of justice, and no significant evidence Is able to identify which can form the basis of punishment. Directly named in the report immediately listed for the commission of the crime, but the prosecution failed to present evidence that could link the accused to the commission of the crime, the quality of evaluating the evidence in the appeal against Bret, the appeal against the sentence. Are quite different from those held in the appeal against the conviction, strictly and in the appeal against the same strict method of eviction was not applied because the trial court was already acquitted. Was found to have been acquitted after a proper analysis of the evidence on record interference, when it was appealed that such There was evidence that there was generally evidence of abortion of justice. The culprits of the accused's conviction top advocates from Khushal Kot lawyer