Find a Lawyer

IMTIAZ versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Appreciating the Evidence of Unimportant Evidence The benefit of the doubt was the case at the trial when, when the police party went to the spot on a prior notice, they found cartons and packets on the question of the footpath. The man standing nearby started to run away, who was allegedly arrested and charged. A prosecution witness confessed that he could not make any contact with the accused during his entire time, except for the fact that the accused fled the scene. The investigation did not provide any direct or indirect evidence against the accused witnesses by which he could link the accused to the said cartoons, the other witness of the prosecution also stated that there was no evidence linking the accused to the crime. Where the prosecution failed to record a Nexus. Or a link to the drug recovered from the accused. And when his grip was within a furlong distance in a densely populated area. And when no site was planned. While this was so needed in this case, so that the court could determine in what circumstances the suspect was arrested, the mere fact that someone near the cartons had fled or attempted to flee This would be just irrational proof, with no punishment. The benefit of the doubt could have been extended to the accused and he was sentenced by the trial court and set aside and he was acquitted. immigration advocates contact from Issa Khel lawyer