Find a Lawyer

STATE versus SHAHID HAFEEZ

The appeal against the acquittal of the accused in the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 Section 25 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Section 417 Criminal Procedure (XLV, 1860), section 302/109/34 was not included in the FIR There was no subsequent identity test. The FIR did not provide the characteristics and details of the culprits. The statements of the alleged eyewitnesses were recorded after 17 days, with no delay. The illegal delay alleges that public servants were on their duty at the relevant time. The suspect's arrest was under dispute and evidence. The complainant was not a witness to the incident, but witnesses received reports of his wife's death and the complainant filed an FIR without anyone's name. Who lived far away from the incident and was not described. Reasons for the location of the incident at the relevant time had repeatedly contradicted each other in connection with the date of arrest of the accused, saying that the arrest and recovery of any weapon was not involved in the accused nor linked to the murder commission. Neither the documentary evidence has proved that he was responsible for it. At the time the trial court correctly dismissed the defendant's dismissal order on the basis of the evidence on record, for any misrepresentation or non-proof reading and for distortion and illegality, the appeal could not be interfered with. when you need a advocate from Khangarh lawyer