Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL versus STATE

The testimonies of Sections 302 (b) and 452 both of the eyewitnesses improved their statements that occurred overnight, but the eyesight did not reveal the source of light in their statements to the police and I also improved his statements stating that the tube light continued that there was such a baseless improvement to the prosecution's story that an identity parade was not held in this case, which was a testimony from the prosecution. The nephew was away from the incident and could not explain why. Attendance at the relevant time was a witness to the occasion. According to the circumstances, the ocular account was not credible and could not be relied upon, in which case the defendant's sentence was retained in a case in which the post-mortem examination of the victim was delayed by fifteen hours. Was done After this incident, after the incident, the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital who died there was enough to indicate that Aisha's post-mortem was time consuming and immediately after the story was told. An FIR was not registered, in which the suspect was named only because of the suspicion that exporting a pistol from the accused was useless as no vacancy was recovered on the spot and the report of the Franz Science Laboratory was just that. It was said that the pistol allegedly recovered from the accused was in working condition. The investigating officer did not take the opportunity. This kind of recovery of Thistle could not provide any collateral to the ocular account. The assailants, who received the medical attention tax advocates from Hunza Nagar lawyer