Find a Lawyer

ANSAR ALI versus STATE

Sections 2 (2 (b), 2 382, evidence of / suspicion 34) had the benefit of doubting the value of the evidence in the dark night and instead had a deserted canal that did not immediately reside in the FIR. He was confessed by the perpetrators of the alleged crimes, which remained unknown on the spot and no investigation was done in the matter so that the accused could be positively prosecuted and prosecuted. The witness had never identified the suspect as a real culprit, but was told by the local police only to get the accused involved. The only witness presented by the prosecution remains, he never identified the accused at a local police station or at a test identification parade and made his statement to the trial court after about two-and-a-half years. The suspect was identified for the first time. Years of the alleged incident, the witness said that the witness was an opportunity witness who failed to establish a plausible reason for his presentation. A relevant witness at the scene of the crime at that time. Lived in a different village not far from the place, by the witness of the occasion for his presence at the relevant time It was established that the reason was unacceptable effect. The accused was not released from serious suspicion by the prosecution's witness; the accused did not set any motive for the prosecution, accusing the accused of retrieving the weapons during the trial. Was illegally illegally recovered from their possession and the location of the incident. best advocate from Tando Mohd Khan lawyer