Find a Lawyer

MIR MUHAMMAD versus STATE

The court, convicting the accused of section 9 (c) and 48 evidence, sentenced him to life imprisonment. While conducting a raid on the hotel, the legitimate investigating officer did not close the hotel's register, which could indicate who was occupied on the relevant date and in the room. At that time the hotel was located in the Ganjanabad area and the availability of independent witnesses was not difficult at the raid as the investigating officer, acknowledged by the prosecution witnesses, did not attempt to invite any citizen as a consultant to the raiding party. The police constable was outside the hotel but the investigating officer did not even ask him to work, depending on the testimony of the adviser investigating officer, with his own two deputies who always accompanied him in the case of Major Dent. The absence and the raiding party were due to the absence of the supervising officer, They were not presented as a witness although he was the most senior and respected person among them. The raiding party did not even appear before the court on the call of the court and the prosecution closed its course without a supervisory inspection. The prosecution's agency always benefited from such conduct, leading to three witnesses. Recovery and evidence employed by the Anti-Narcotic Force did not encourage trust in the prosecutor's case. The High Court refused to admit that the suspect was chasing a hotel room, leaving the door open in a public place trial. The court and the accused were convicted and charged Was reset, the SC's appeal how to become a advocate from Poonch lawyer