Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMED versus STATE

Definition of the testimony of section 13 (d) was examined by the defense witness, but its evidence was neither considered nor evaluated nor was it alleged that the Maharat caste. The source was the prosecution's witness and the caste source said that the two castes were admitted. Animosity existed between the two tribes in this case, though it was not always sufficient to interfere with the testimony of a witness belonging to any other than the witness, and for this reason excluded the prosecution's evidence. Could not be done, but the truth remains. In the present case, the defense witness was removed from consideration, but there was no reason to conclude the defense from the verdict, given the material malfunction that the defense evidence was initially visible despite a definite request by the accused. Was resolved, the same issue will be resolved. The defendant had already suffered a lot in favor of the accused as he had been in detention for more than two years and the accused was sentenced, he was separated in circumstances. lawer from fb area from Chacklala lawyer