Find a Lawyer

AZIM KHAN versus STATE

Sections 302 (c), 324, 337 (a) (f) and 34 Prohibition (Enforcement Hadith) Order (4 of 1979), 5 11 Provincial Motor Vehicle Ordinance (XIX of 1965), Section 3, and Driving Hostility The purpose of making a false allegation of absence or indictment against the accused / appellant was that, while driving with and without a drunk driving license and negligence, he killed the deceased and injured three others, One of them was acquitted of his leg trial court. While convicting the accused on three different counts, he was sentenced to various explanations, OK, Thrush and Daman accused the defendant primarily of saying that there was no evidence to prove that the accused was speeding. And was responsible for driving negligently and the medical evidence did not support the ocular account. The eyewitnesses and the injured have had reason to suppress the true facts and, therefore, the eyewitnesses and the witnesses of the injured are free of any exaggeration and suspicion without the intention of finding the courage to be trapped in falsehood. In the presence, no question of false allegations arose. The defense failed to extract any material discrimination: contradictions or contradictions from statements of prosecutorial witnesses that have long been investigated and successfully reported. The Motor Vehicle Examiner has revealed that the undercarriage vehicle was in good condition and was not the result of an accidental accident The Chemical Examiner's report confirmed that alcohol was present in the sample, ie, evidence of abdominal washings, blood and urine. Including direct and circumstantial evidence. On record to show this famous high court advocate from Khuzdar lawyer