Find a Lawyer

REHMAT ULLAH versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Appreciation of evidence, reduction of conviction witnesses fully supported the FIR version when police asked to stop the joint plan and speeding of the car, it was eventually seized and containing five kilograms of equipment. Found. The marijuana accused was sufficient to dispel any wrongdoing in the case of the arrest of each accused on the spot; there was no reason for the prosecutor's witness to wrongly include the accused in the case of the abusive case, at the trial register. Since then, the accused have done no wrong to prove their innocence. The exclusion of public witnesses in the recovery proceedings by any action was not fatal to the prosecution case, as the Controlling Section 25 of the Drug Substances Act 1997 provided for the application of CR 103, CRPC, in cases under the aforesaid Act. Was explicitly excluded. The police witnesses were as good witnesses as the other witnesses had to be linked to the truth until provenman ts the witnesses were according to the prosecutor's version The conviction of the accused was maintained in these situations The accused were not ex-offenders and in the past. I was never involved, as in any case, the sentence of the accused was reduced to seven years \ with reduction of each fine, which was sufficient to meet the conclusion of the Justice \ r \ n patent advocate from Ghotki lawyer