MUZAMMAL ALIAS TIDDI versus STATE
According to the evidence of the provisions of Sections 45 458 and 55 of the evidence, one accused was seen near the scene equipped with a pistol while the other accused, nominated by the complainant, was seen hitting the factory wall and descending into the street which was very valuable. There was a looted property. The accused was also recovered by the complainant or the witnesses, who either failed to bring any hostile record of their false implications, and they found no credible and responsible for his involvement in the case. Did not present a concrete explanation on which the alleged decision was based, for valid and valid reasons, and was fully in accordance with the law of the Supreme Court and did not face misrepresentation or misreading of the material evidence. Neither the false nor the misapplication of facts and the appeal in accordance with the law will be dismissed.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
advocate from Moro lawyer
