Find a Lawyer

GHULAM HUSSAIN versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Sections 435/439 and Panel Code of 265 (XLV of 1860), Section 307/506/427/34 Explosive Substances Act (VI8 1908), Section 3/4/6 Section 265 K At the initial stage of the trial under the CRPC, the trial court held that the accused was unlikely to be convicted in the face of contradictory statements of four witnesses before the police and it was observed. It is said that eyewitnesses made different statements. The court was able to believe any of these statements and it was premature to say which of these statements were false and a challan was already presented to the court which is yet to record the statements of the prosecution witnesses and their Who had not yet encountered them. Earlier, statements and testimony of the trial court were neither valid nor vacant to testify, nor were the witnesses' affidavits validly dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner's petition moved under section 6565K, the PC review application was dismissed in the circumstances law firms from Nowshero Feroz lawyer