Find a Lawyer

JUMMAN ALIAS JUMA versus STATE

Articles 302, 324 and 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), Sections 353 and 537 of the Convention of Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 133, the definition of evidence was affected by the inherent defect and illegal proceedings when the trial initially began. So one of the accused persons was not present before the court because he was absconding and before the accused could be arrested and sent, the evidence of the prosecution was recorded, headed by two prosecution witnesses, to record the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses. After more than four months were recorded, after the arrest of the fugitive accused, although an amended charge But the evidence was not pre-recorded as required under Section 353, CR PC, which was a violation of Article 133 of the 1984 Act. All such irregularities were not curable under section 373737, the judgment of the PC and the punishment recorded under it were only worsened on this score. The accused was not provided with the proper opportunity to be examined by the witness, which is the legal right of every accused. It was stated that the accused was not allowed to defend himself properly, dismissing the request of the accused's lawyer for postponement. Went, said the lawyer's statement was canceled and instead another lawyer was appointed whom he said without the consent of the accused and he was told that he did not believe that the lawyer did so arbitrarily. Appoint a lawyer, and, who the defendant did not trust and then, the last chance to close his case without hurrying charges There was no, extremely misleading, no apology, no prosecution witnesses registration advocate from Mohen Jo Daro lawyer