Find a Lawyer

SHABIUL HASSAN versus THE STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Contempt of the Conduct (XLV of 1860), the confession of section 161 was merely contentious evidence and the main evidence of the prosecution relied upon was that of the complainant, the conscience and the Special Magistrate, and no one to doubt it. There was no reason. The complainant will falsely associate the confession of any of the co-accused with the crime which, even if admissible, was not proof and could be regarded as contradictory evidence only but not the basis of the conviction of the co-accused. Except where the confession of the co-accused was not a crime. There was only evidence in this case, and the sentence was not based on the assertion that there was no evidence of such confession and it should not have been treated as such. lawer from fb area from Kashmore lawyer