Find a Lawyer

ABDULLAH ALIAS PAPOO versus STATE

Section 302/34 Definition of Evidence The benefit of the doubt was that the trial case was full of contradictions which caused serious doubts and the property of any case was not presented to the court and the witnesses were shown for identification. That kind of mistake didn't help the prosecution much, there would be legal evidence on the record. The court had to prove the crime through aggressive, concrete, direct and strong evidence, the prosecutor had to stand on his feet and prove beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence on the record of the case is not clear. Should be. And the affirmative convictions were bound by justice according to the law and not by their moral convictions, however, it could be strengthened that eyewitnesses could not be relied upon, as it certainly could not be said that they were Were nearby. If they were present on the spot, such contradictions, flaws and material contradictions could not have occurred. There were also suspicions of the recovery of the sticks used in the incident, as the witnesses there did not say that they had been recovered and sealed on the spot, the bodies of the recovered crime witnesses. Were not shown. The trial prosecutor did not provide any explanation as to why the deceased's blood-stained clothes were not recovered at the hospital post-mortem and why counseling was not made on the occasion. How and why blood-stained clothing was used on the playground was not investigated by the investigating officer and was used by prosecutor's witnesses. immigration advocates email from Gohar Ghoushti lawyer