Find a Lawyer

GHULAM HUSSAIN versus STATE

In view of the value of the evidence in sections 324, 337a (ii) (ii), 337f (i), 337l (ii), 147 and 149, the nature of the injuries was difficult to ascertain. The nature of the weapons used in the crime was insecure, with full dependence on a particular type of weapon, especially in situations where both the hatchet and the lathi were involved in the recovery of the weapons of the crime, both of the prosecution witnesses testified. Was acquitted of the joint attack and the men were acquitted by both sticks and hatchets, to accuse the culprits only because they had a Was present, which can be said to be a hard and brittle substance, had no validity; medical evidence was commonly used to confirm molecular evidence such as that of injured persons. Or because of a prosecutor's testimony, such evidence certainly did not constitute the accused, which the trial court denied a large portion of eye witnesses, including the injured, to prove their involvement. Ed solid evidence was the basis of the conviction of the medical officer if the trial court was of the opinion that there was a contradiction in the evidence of the prosecutor, it should have been interpreted at the trial stage only. About 17 to 17 days after the incident, the accused charged with the recovery of the weapons of the crime, when the accused had sufficient time to eliminate it, was hardly credible in the circumstances of the case, some agrarian disputes. Relations between the complainant and the accused were strained. After several contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were acquitted law firms from Kandiaro lawyer