Article 302 (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Re-review of the evidence The purpose of applying the principle of consistency was proven to be a crime of persuasion The principles were only charged with a firearm injury but the Post Another injury was caused by the Martam Report. The trial court convicted the accused with two small arms and sentenced him to death, but the high court changed the sentence to life imprisonment. Legally, the complaining party failed to allege a co-accused through any concrete evidence, thus the accused should have been treated equally. The prosecution was neither natural nor probable and provocative by the trial court. Similarly, the High Court faced the wrong structure of evidence and was convicted of wrongdoing which could not be sustained in law. In order to maintain the conviction on capital charges. Instead of tainted and outraged, should come through a free and unspecified source of testimony without any independent support, the Supreme Court changed the application for leave to appeal and allowed the accused to appeal and be sentenced.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
