NOORUL HAQ versus THE STATE
Prohibited (Enforcement Limitation) Order 1979 Article 3 Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Section 34/35 Proof, showed no hostility to the prosecution's testimony nor any reason to falsely implicate the accused. The contradictions in the THI statements were modest and unusual. The suspects, who were arrested the day before the incident, were not confirmed by any of the circumstances. Were the ones who recovered heroin in the presence of witnesses. It was alleged that it was not enough to simply deny the allegations, which was not sufficient to disprove the prosecution's evidence.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
top civil advocates from Mansehra lawyer
