Find a Lawyer

SARFRAZ ALIAS FARZO versus STATE

The definition of the evidence of section 9 (c) clearly revealed that the time of occurrence was different from the shadow of the ink and the shadow of the writing in relation to the time, and in the handwriting of the complaint the matter was referred to the property. There was a contradiction about the time and date of doing so. The statement of the written complaint and the witnesses to whom the property was handed over had no explanation as to why the parcel of the case property had been kept at the police station for so long and had not been sent for chemical examination before. Why send a parcel so long? In the Chemical Examiner's office itself, the prosecution's case was allegedly referred to the Constable / Prosecutor's witness, who was allegedly handed over the parcel of the case property, who did not make a statement before the trial court that the parcel And was submitted to the same chemical office. The investigator was not on record to find out who took the parcel in the Chemical Examiner's office and the important link record of E was silent as to what happened to the motorcycle that was seized because of the case. The property case is being subjected to suspicion, the trial court's decision was set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charge against him and released. divorce advocates from Guddu lawyer