Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ versus STATE

Articles 9 (c), 25, 29, 35 and 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), Articles 103 and 516A define the prosecution of the evidence, so that the arrest of the accused and the recovery of marijuana and opium can be recovered from secret cavities. The car presented two witnesses who supported its recovery, the controversial statement of the witnesses, according to the affidavit, was sufficient to link the defendants with the transport of large quantities of prohibited material, defense not proven. Why the police could falsely implicate the accused, especially when there was no enmity against the accused from the raiding party, it was beyond understanding that a large number of people in the car without the knowledge / consent of the prosecution witnesses I was exposed to marijuana and opiates, consistent with the presence of articles and their recovery and its mechanism. The impact that it had on his influence, the contradictions pointed to the defense were unnecessary and they were of no importance. The confessional statements made by the accused, which were again after observing all the formal observations, were voluntary and Were true and did not suffer any form or material defect. The fact is that the vehicle from which the prohibited recovery was made was not presented to the court, the prosecution's story was not fatal. The drug could not be recovered. Prior to the trial, it was terminated during the trial under the valid order of the session judge and the defendants said no objection was raised against the object of destruction that only a small quantity of the alleged substance was recovered from the accused. I was sent for a chemical analysis, so it will be replicated inheritance advocates near Parachinar lawyer