Find a Lawyer

GUL AFSAR KHAN versus STATE

Appreciating the reports of Section 9 (c), 14 and 15 Chemical Examiner in connection with 23kg of marijuana sent for chemical inspection, positive prosecution witnesses fully supported the case against the accused, the prosecuting attorney for the accused Was unable to identify such material contradiction. The statements of the prosecution witnesses, even in the statement under Section PC under2, CRPC, the accused did not refuse to recover the quantity of marijuana from the shop, the accused made any contrary purpose against the police or the prosecutor. Did not request. It was sufficient to identify the accused in the record that the admissibility of the testimony of the trial court was not admissible in any of the procedures or the facts wrong, a different view cannot be taken from the person expressed by the special judge. ? The convictions passed by the trial court against the accused, however, should be decided by the trial court as well and the trial court was not allowed to explain the nature of the sentence's harmony. online advocate from Muzaffarabad lawyer