Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MAJEED versus STATE

The trial court appreciated the evidence of section 9 (c), despite the fact that there had been serious irregularities in the investigation of the case. And the accused was not given the opportunity by the Investigation Officer to produce evidence in defense, the accused challan was prepared by the Section HO the next day of filing a case and sent by the Circle Officer after 15 days of preparation. ? The challan was promptly presented with the challan in the death-related case, especially when the wife of the accused complained to the superior police officer that her husband / suspect had been arrested from his home. Section HO wishes the trial court to prosecute the accused further observed that the investigating officer was obliged to provide the accused with an opportunity to prove his innocence, but he failed to do so, leading to the trial. I, the trial court rightly concluded that the matter was not investigated. In a transparent way, it can be said that investigations were conducted with dishonesty. No one from the public was involved in the investigation of the case. The two recovery witnesses and the investigating officer belonged to the same police station. They had to record their motions not only in the case diary, but also to keep a daily register in the police station, but in this case it was not done, the complainant's signature on the complaint was different from his signature on the recovery memo. Appearances and recovery plans will result in the trial court being open to suspicion of property production, prosecuting prosecutors for failing to establish their case against the accused in the circumstances. The suspect was arrested by C immigration advocates from Samma Satta lawyer