Find a Lawyer

ZAHID IQBAL versus STATE

Section 9 (c) testimony of the evidence was prepared in the police station after the recovery memo case, not at the location and thus the recovery itself had no value. The recovery witness admitted that his statement was made at the police station. All action was made suspicious The recovery site was not mentioned in the recovery memo The investigating officer did not ask any of the 20/25 people to join the rehabilitation. The police officer himself assumed the role of an investigator and his subordinates, the police, to testify to the facts of the rehabilitation. It was an illegal act and such an inquiry expressed distrust when independent persons were not present during the police recovery process, so it was necessary to refer to police witnesses when the prosecution's version was contaminated with numerous impurities and illicit practices. Whereas, the defense version presented by the accused under Sections 342 and 340 (2), the CRPC was assisted and the defendant ported by the defense witness was acquitted. best advocate from Ahmadpur East lawyer