Can be taken as circumstancial evidence, to corroborate the main evidence at hand. Hence, relevant and as well as admissible, but not credible. You should say its not credible. As, mere Evidence of K9 dogs is not sufficient evidence to cause conviction. Moreover, its less reliable bcz of various doubts as to traing of certain dog, and animal mind can't be trusted. So, evidence of sniffer dog alone is not enough to cause convictionm. There, are various cases out their in which such kinda ecidence was brought in court court and were admitted after running test of their relevancey. Make sure to check out our video "relevancey vs admissibility" to make ur concept clear.
☎️📞for 1 to 1 daily online lectures Contact: +923173434306 (Whatsapp only) 💎 complete QSO 1984 Course Choose any plan or subject of your desire. adequate material will also be provided.
Once again I'm requesting you. Plz do hurry in making videos of qso. 💖
Bro you are just amazing please make other videos on qso
Sallam . ap k lectures bhot easily smjne me aa jaty hn .. Kindly article 22 k aagy mazeed jo articles hn.un ko smjae
Bhai next artical 24 kaha han ap ka lecture bhot acha hn
Kindly share the videos after arter 22 QSO
❤❤
sir,where is the lecture series,other subsequent lectures of QSO,22 Onward??
AoA
How can I get your other videos about qso?
Sir qso complete lec ha ap k ?
Sir Art 23 nd 24 qso vdo sir plzzzz
👍
Nice
sir plz kindly qso k total articles banae
Inshallah dear I'll restart making such kinda videos at completion of 2k subscribers
Age ki videos bhai tab tk nahi banai ga jab tk 2k subscribers na hu tu sare log subscribers dondo bhai k lia
kindly upload other detail lecture on QSO PlZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Sir
More videos plz
I'm waiting for your next video Ada.
Please upload our next test of gat is expected in May.
Do you have his contact information??
@@iqrabasharat1258 No Mam.
bro let me explain that identification by snifer dogs is not an admissible in law
Can be taken as circumstancial evidence, to corroborate the main evidence at hand. Hence, relevant and as well as admissible, but not credible. You should say its not credible. As, mere Evidence of K9 dogs is not sufficient evidence to cause conviction. Moreover, its less reliable bcz of various doubts as to traing of certain dog, and animal mind can't be trusted. So, evidence of sniffer dog alone is not enough to cause convictionm. There, are various cases out their in which such kinda ecidence was brought in court court and were admitted after running test of their relevancey. Make sure to check out our video "relevancey vs admissibility" to make ur concept clear.
New lectures krain plz
New lecture sir
New lectures plz
Sir where is article 24
New lecture plzzzz
☎️📞for 1 to 1 daily online lectures Contact: +923173434306 (Whatsapp only)
💎 complete QSO 1984 Course
Choose any plan or subject of your desire. adequate material will also be provided.
Plz new lectures
New videos plz