STATE versus GHULAM RASOOL
SS, 396, 412, 457 and 148 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Definitive Complaint of Evidence Although the FIR stated that the robbers were unknown to him, the accused complained of identity parade. Was not put to the test. The cross-examination revealed that the accused was shown at the police station 4/5 times; the identity of the accused by this case would not be consistent with the score, the testimony of the complainant's son-in-law was also rightfully done by the High Court. Was rejected. On the basis that he was a witness of the occasion, the recovery of the lost articles was of no use as it violated the provisions of Section 103, CR PC and there was no evidence to show that the complaint Belonged to the owner or her husband. After the leave case was filed to appeal, the application was dismissed
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
list of supreme court advocates from Dandot lawyer
