Find a Lawyer

SAHAB KHAN versus THE STATE

Clauses 307/34 and 365 of the Prosecution Prosecution claimed that the accused was included in the identity test and that the victim, his son and a conscience were able to identify the accused in the examination that was made by Assistant Mukhtarkar and Magistrate Third Class. Source, while claiming through it. It was alleged that such identification was never made and that no witnesses in whose presence the allegation was being tested did not give details of the accused, hence their suspicions regarding the identity of the accused. There was suspected evidence by members and advisers of. The accused, who was accused of having an identity test, was less charged with the accused because no identification test was conducted by the confessional witnesses, nor did they give any details of the accused in their police statements as far as the victim was concerned. According to the evidence of the son, the prosecution was not present at the time of the incident nor did he tell the court that he was present at the time of the alleged encounter with the police. I, too, had no use for it, the accused Victim's eyes were closed because he could not see that the accused had Someone opened fire on the police and on the other side and did not have the evidence. Controversially from another quarter, Victim did not provide details of the suspects before the police and was identified after a delay of more than 10 months, when there was no explanation. So could not be relied upon. Of late, the prosecution failed to substantiate its case against the suspects and found top advocate from Head Marala lawyer