Find a Lawyer

DR. KHALID MOIN versus STATE

Section 5 365A / Anti-Anti-Terrorism Act (VI XX XX XX XXVII), Section Evidence (2) (E) Despite knowing all the facts defined in the evidence, the complainant admitted, in the FIR It did not disclose, it contained all the details not necessarily mentioned in the FIR, but it was important to mention at least the major and important points, including the complainant and the abductor. The prosecution's witnesses have improved their statements following the consultation so that the statements of the case may be in accordance. The evidence of the complainant being in evidence was unacceptable, the trial of the above witnesses testimony was improved, it required suicides which led to the delay of two and a half months in this case. ? Police under Section 161, CRPC. It was not explained by the prosecutor, nor has it been proven on the record, in which a consultation between them was made to gradually improve his case and explain the full details of these events. ? The conviction and the same will lose its effect when the evidence was disclosed that the recovery of the cell phone from the accused did not prove that the accused was acquitted under the circumstances. solicitors from Babri Banda lawyer