Find a Lawyer

SOOBA versus STATE

In the event of testimony of section 2302 (b), there was no possibility of misidentification or substitution of the perpetrator of the crime, as well as injury to the injured lawyer's witness, as well as the accused. Subsequent injuries are also mentioned in the KI injury. In the FIR it is stated that the injured prosecution witness had beaten the accused in his defense and on the occasion the presence of the accused and the injured prosecution witness was fully proved, in which case the medical The evidence confirmed the fact that the fire was injured by the autopsy. As well as the injured lawyer, the incident took place in the courtyard of the FIR's residence to show aggression by the accused Parri, however, after a consultation with him, the case was registered, which included Meadow. Legal reports were also shown, but that fact alone could have ruined the entire case of the prosecutor, although there was some contradiction in the middle, as well as the evidence to the extent that the defendant was fired, but said the contradiction went ahead on the defense issue. Can't raise, when the fact that the deceased was shot during the incident proved to be the case. The suspect appeared in the form of a medico legal report, which clearly revealed that he was present at the time of the failure to prove the defendant's version of ocular, which included evidence of the injured prosecution's witness. Were probable and understandable, believed the accused was punished and retained best advocate from Turbat lawyer