Find a Lawyer

HABIB-UR-REHMAN versus STATE

Sections 17 (3) and 24 (1) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 337 F (i), 392 and 34 Criminal Procedure (V9 1898), Clause 540 require evidence to prove the testimony of a material witness, sentenced. The main reason for the defendant's lawyer's argument was that the trial court had failed to appreciate that no witnesses to the prosecution had been cross-examined by the accused's lawyer and that the trial court had given the accused The prosecutor had shown an inescapable urge to lose her right to cross. Testimony and further settlement of the case The examination of the Chief of Prosecution witnesses continued for six different dates, but on no occasion was a lawyer available for the cross-examination of the accused, nor was the accused himself a judge of the prosecution's witnesses. Did not get a chance to test himself, though he could not force an accused to defend himself, but was obliged to give him as much as possible to defend himself so that he would not be treated unfairly and also charged. He did not have to defend himself and leave it to the prosecutor to prove his case. The court should be taken to decide the fate or bless him, extremely serious criminal cases. Since the court is concerned with the life, liberty and honor of a citizen, the accused could not be allowed to misuse due to the practice of law, in the present case, the accused must include his defense and the prosecution's witnesses The opportunity to cross over was provided, but he could not take advantage of it and it was not an allegation that he was unable to engage with a lawyer because of his poverty. immigration advocates phone number from South Wazirstan lawyer