Find a Lawyer

EJAZ ALI versus STATE

Section 392 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood), Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (3) Definition of the FIR which was promptly filed reveals that the complainant was involved in the robbery. No one's role was specified, nor did any identifying features of the participants were provided, but nothing was on record to indicate that the suspect was allegedly suspected by the investigating officer. He remained on physical remand with the police, but no articles were recovered from it. The statement given by the accused in the police custody was not valid in law. During the trial, the identity of the accused was dropped 9 days after the arrest of the accused, and the unidentified delay caused serious suspicion besides the fact. It was suspected that he was supervised by D-Section P, who had no authority to oversee the coughing person at the time of the identification parade, except 4/5 police constables were identified by the parade complainant. At the residence, the recovery memorandum was seen by two constables of the respective police station whose identity is evidence of a parade. Depending on the nature of the suspect and the evidence obtained by the trial court on the basis of unacceptable evidence, the conviction cannot be relied upon and without any independent assistance in the retrieval of articles, the accused cannot be retained. Has been entitled to carry. It is suspected that the accused was acquitted of the charge and was released under circumstances advocate for immigration from Nankana Sahib lawyer