Find a Lawyer

GHULAM SHABBIR versus THE STATE

Sections 302/324/337A (ii) / 149 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), sections 6, 7, 9 and 38 defined the evidence and the accused party was of a different sect and had religious differences between the parties. Because of the incident that took place and the accused party killed the victim and injured the complainant and their accomplices, the incident was the result of sectarian hatred, it would be a defensive version of terrorism. No evidence was supported in the rejection of the prosecution's evidence and to prove that the complainant and the accused were not the victim of aggression by the parties, the evidence on record proved that the victim's companionship. The accused was assaulted during the operation and the co-accused participated in the attack while he was there. All the suspects will be deemed to have made it illegal to record sufficient evidence to assemble evidence of their common purpose. It is alleged that the allegations of being a member of the Legislative Assembly led to a riot in which the victim was killed. The accused in the murder will be equally responsible for being a member of the Legislative Assembly, but the two cases of the killing of the injured are not evidence of the accused being involved in the aggression of the complaining party or the free fight between the parties. Will not be charged when he is armed with deadly weapons and pursues his common purpose by demonstrating force and violence and injuring the witness, who is allegedly responsible for the murder. There can be no exception in the investigation of the accused's crime except that a co-accused, who was an old man of seventy years and admittedly empty handed, and in this case law firms from Loralai lawyer