Find a Lawyer

SAEED AHMAD versus STATE

Validating the provisions of Sections 10 (3), 11 and 16, the extraordinary delay of 24 days in filing the FIR was fatal to the prosecution case as its presentation was interpreted as owing to the complaint dismissed by the accused. The monitors were monitored and this prevented the police from filing a report due to the complaint being made to the police but it was said that this explanation was not in any way appropriate, even in villages with modern methods of communication. In the presence of, it was not understandable that the complaining party had been taken hostage and had no access to law enforcement. If he's not stopped hearing any evidence was presented in court to support the description nor the alleged \ hooligans was revealed names names. Nor has it been explained that if the complainant or his father were kept under surveillance, as well as other close relatives, including the prosecutor's witnesses, who were allegedly seen in the jeep making the complaint. , Was previously prevented from filing a report. The accusation of sexual abuse was not recovered from the possession of the accused, in which case the incident did not occur in the way it was suggested by the prosecution that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence of collateral verification, the benefit of the doubt. The accused should go and through the trial, the penalties against the accused were fixed. On the one hand, he was acquitted of the charge and released immigration advocates phone number from Pindi Bhattian lawyer