Find a Lawyer

ABDUL AHAD versus STATE

The defendant was acquitted at the bail stage in his statement regarding the testimony of Sections 295B and 188 of the evidence, but, while appearing as a prosecution witness, at the trial, he gave a baseless explanation from his first statement. Resigned that he had given the same under pressure. The complainant from the area elders, who was a star witness, came out for a noble cause, but the incompetent and restorative movement that followed, after jumping from one position to another, reduced his credibility. The complainant, who made mutually contradictory statements. , Was neither credible nor deserving of his testimony, as the probative value of his testimony was substantially reduced, the complainant testified to his knowledge of the Islamic jurisprudence's testimony. To prove their religious potential was not brought to the record. The trial presented inconsistent, contradictory and contradictory opinions on the matter, no matter which nest could be made a safe or legitimate basis for a capital offense, but the trial court relied on it. While acting blindly, the available evidence was alleged, in no way could it be tagged with the alleged crime because the prosecution had failed to establish directly. The nexus investigation between the accused and the allegedly objectionable booklet was halted at half-way without reaching the final and logical conclusion because the person responsible for composing, hiding and publishing the text had not been discovered. The evidence has been left behind to discuss the evidence. Religion law websites from Bhimbar lawyer