Find a Lawyer

STATE versus LAI MUHAMMAD

The Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 did not support prosecution of the kidnappers under Section 25 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Section 417 Sanctions Regulation (XLV of 1860), Section 365 A / 34, allegations of kidnapping. One of the defendants was named by the prosecution. A cross-examination was conducted by a special public prosecutor and no trace was found that the suspects were involved in the kidnapping of the alleged abductors. One of the alleged kidnappers said that the accused in the court were not the same, while the other kidnapper stated in his evidence that the accused were the ones in the court whose names were given by the police, but in his testimony he said Nowhere did it say that except that their names were given by the policeman, in these circumstances, the assumptions alone could not be prosecuted on capital charges. Supposedly when the kidnappers turned their story and the recovery counsel did not support the case, only the police and the Investigation and Evidence Trial Court recorded a case of criminal prosecution against the accused. On suspicion, the accused was acquitted on the grounds of suspicion under the court and not guilty of misleading, illegal and well-known evidence. Abortion of justice cannot be interfered with by appeal top civil advocates from Havelian lawyer