Find a Lawyer

RUKH NIAZ versus STATE

With regard to Section 13, the definition of the Illegal Arms Act (XXI of 1991), the testimony of Section 7 evidence, proved that Kalashnikov and the direct rounds were recovered from the possession of the accused, both at the date and place, both witnesses made material points. And the defendants failed to identify any contradiction in their statements, the contradictions made by the accused were so slight that on the basis of which, it could not be that the trial. Despite being a police officer, the prosecution's witnesses have failed, but they have no charge of making false accusations of the accused. There was no cause or motive, no confrontation or annoyance was demanded against these witnesses, a police officer's testimony could be found. He should not be dismissed simply because he belongs to the police, the teacher was a good witness like any other person until the evidence was brought to the record to discredit his testimony. It was alleged that he could not identify a serious flaw in the investigation, other than some minor setbacks that did not affect the authenticity of the case. With the help of the expert's firearms, the evidence was beyond doubt and the expert's trustworthy report was positive, which supported the prosecutor's story that there was no reason for the suspect to be involved in this case's false interference. The accused did not present any evidence to prove that the commission of the crime had no hand in it and was thrown by Kalashnikov and straight round fugitives, who were released by police for unknown reasons. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Khairpur Nathan Shah lawyer