Find a Lawyer

NIAZ-UD-DIN versus STATE

Article 9 (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), conviction of evidence, the first guilty charge against the accused / applicant was that it had recovered 5kg of heroin, the High Court had told the trial court. The source maintained the conviction of the accused. The accused alleged that he was arrested before the case was registered, and police want him to confess to another person's involvement in the drug trafficking business and to the defendant's denial. The truth in this case is that none of the prosecution witnesses had any enmity with the accused. Nor was it suggested that despite long cross-examination there was no reason for the accused to be involved in falsehoods, statements of the prosecution witnesses persisted on the particulars of the material did not demand any intervention to prove the accused's guilt. ? It did not provide any examples of drug trafficking involved. The evidence showed that the suspect was subjected to customary torture, perhaps because the detainees wanted to find a confession from him, the prison sentence was reduced from ten to six years. The application was converted to appeal and adjudicated accordingly \ r \ n \ r \ n best advocate from Landi Kotal lawyer