Find a Lawyer

EJAZ ALIAS JAGAN versus STATE

Section 392 and 411 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 20 evidence was defined by the four accused in the coach and he remained in the coach for a short while before the coach. Coaches and complainant witnesses in a deserted place, thus, could potentially secure the faces of the accused in their memory and later identify the complainant in court, as eight-four witnesses supported them. Who were also deprived of their cash and mobile. There was no enmity between the coach and the accused by the accused. Direct evidence was permanent, natural and reliable. Recovering money from the robbers did not mean that they were not proven guilty, as the recovery was merely an exclusion of the contradictory fact. Section 34, PPC, in the absence of any prejudice, did not affect the prosecution's case even though the accused was charged. Playing a specific and independent role in the commission of a crime against specific persons, the number of people returning to the hands of armed men in public transport, suggested a anti-social crime, in which the accused was charged with some form of punishment and punishment. Softening was not allowed. The suspects were kept in a stable condition \ r \ n law firms from Chak Sawara lawyer