Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMAD versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Defending the Evidence of Suspicion An accused was neither arrested on the spot nor any "hashish" was recovered when the accused escaped on the spot, with nine policemen. The presence of a police party consisting of the same was hardly made by the accused in the case. The trusted buyer of marijuana v was not examined by the police during the trial by the prosecution during the trial. Attempts to rectify that the accused had some enmity with the police. Evidence of the trial of recovery witnesses was absolutely contradictory and contradictory and contradictory and contradictory to the recovery of marijuana from the accused and his arrest being highly material, on the premises of the prosecution case where recovered recovered recovered from it. Was negatively reflected. The accused was not owned, while the owner of the said Dera was not questioned by the police. The prosecution case was full of suspicion. It was better to make the mistake of doing wrong in the sentence as the accused had the benefit of the doubt. Exhausted under conditions \ r \ n \ r \ n ask a advocate free from Kunjah lawyer