Find a Lawyer

ABDUL HAQ versus STATE

Testimonies of Section 302 (b) evidence presented to the trial court unanimously stated that the fire through the accused had targeted the abductor on the right side of the abdomen, while the co-accused had testified against the deceased medical. The firearm was injured on the forehead. Evidence in the statements of the witnesses during the arguments made by the accused's lawyer during the argument has also been confirmed by the postmortem report in this regard. The matter was trivial and the matter could have been ignored. The matter was reported to the police station shortly afterwards and it cannot be said, after consultation and deliberation in these circumstances, the FIR. The suspect was found innocent by some investigating officers during the investigation, but witnesses, other than a police officer who appeared as a defense, were not presented to any other police officer during the police investigation again. Was made but the parties were never involved in the inquiry or else the police search was bound in court. After taking account of both the evidence and review the matter had to be decided. The witnesses, who were convinced by the nature of the evidence of both witnesses, pointed to a clear and clear picture of the incident and affected the confidence that could be trusted, even in the absence of any piece of evidence. None of the suspects repeated the fire in the meantime. Opportunity to recover cases and vacancies does not correspond to the weapons recovered on the defendant's offer. In such circumstances, it was considered as an appropriate action that the accused was punished. criminal advocate from Satyana Bangla lawyer