Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus STATE

Section 13 (d) is said to have obtained the value of the evidence that its effect was taken from the accused during the 1700 hours from the Ganjanabad area, but was not included in the presence of the independent witnesses required under Case 5103, c. The RPC and the prosecution failed to prove that the pistol presented to the trial court was the same weapon that was alleged to have taken possession of the accused case property during the statement of the accused under Section 342, CRPC. It was their expert action to prove that they were not exported, nor were they sent to Franz / Ballistic. Before the hearing qdmy had been presented to the trial court and alleged arms can be recovered from the possession of the accused was not charged, so the fact was sufficient to deny the prosecution's version. The witnesses were both police constables of the same police station; you, no private person was witnessing the recovery of arms, surrounded by houses and shops. The recorded punishment against the accused could not be sustained. jobs for advocates from Khanbel lawyer