Find a Lawyer

MAULANA NAWAB-UL-HASSAN versus THE STATE

Sections 302 (b) / 149, 324/149 and 148 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 define the material facts regarding the time and place, use of firearms and the on-the-spot witnesses' injuries. Presence defense was not challenged by IK witnesses consistently supported the prosecution's story given in the FIR, the presence of eyewitnesses at the time of the incident and their sustained injuries in the incident. It was established that he was accused of taking revenge and was the cause of the attack. The statement played by each of the suspects was elaborated by eyewitnesses who identified the suspect as Kalashnikov and the weapons of the 7mm rifle, and the suspect's vacant case. Recovery was supported. The rush to file an FIR with the names of the accused and the role of each of them ruled out the possibility of being found false. n And the evidence presented by the accused in support of the alternative prosecution was not a standard to carefully ignore or dismiss the evidence of the prosecution or even to a lesser extent in the prosecution's case to enhance the benefit of the doubt. Create the maximum number of searches. The finding of the accused by the accused and the introduction of the counter-narcotics offense by the trial court without any substance could not be bothered by some minor contradictions and there was no reduction in the contradictions indicated by the accused. Had happened In favor of the conviction of the accused and the convictions of the accused were retained, except under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 inheritance advocates near Jamshoro lawyer