Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL ALIAS NANHA versus STATE

Articles 16 and 10 (3) Definition of evidence does not affect trust of witnesses, including evidence of the complainant and the alleged abductor And he was revealed to be a liar. , The prosecution had fully come forward with the view that Al, the alleged kidnapper, was negligent not only against adultery but also baseless allegations in support of his version of the abduction by the accused. And equated the false accusations that were against them. Medical evidence neither the firearms used during the abduction of the woman nor the car in which she was abducted were recovered during interrogation, thus never being abducted. There was no question of being subjected to abuse or torture in any way, and there was no harassment by way of retaliation to file a prior abduction case against the current complainant's wife and other suspects. In these circumstances he was acquitted \ r \ n \ r \ n solicitors from Kakul lawyer