Find a Lawyer

IKRAM ULLAH versus THE STATE

The Pakistan Penal Code section 302/324/379/404/411/34/149 appreciates the evidence registered in the police station against the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), sections 6 and 7, for which no Opportunity not found. There was an incident of consultation and consultation on daylight and there was no previous background of enmity between the parties. Two attackers / suspects were named in the two FIRs, while the details of the three other accused were also unknown. The suspects were given immediately after the arrest, identified by parade witnesses in which the injured prosecutor's witnesses not only identified the suspect, but also told the police that the incident had occurred. Played their role during the trial and the trial court number of the accused was according to the number of injured. Eyewitnesses were the most natural witnesses by two convicted and three injured witnesses. Ocular's account was confirmed by Madison. The complainant's conduct at this time and place was natural and probable. When the rifles were recovered, the accused had fully proved the purpose of the incident, according to which the identity was paraded. The rules and the witnesses described the role of each accused at the time of the parade cross version of the identification as the defendant pleaded that it was unfounded and impossible to appeal the argument, while presented by the prosecution. The version seems to be more cautious and closer to the truth where automatic weapons such as Kalashnikov and rifle were used, the case against the accused came under the Terrorism Act and the trial court criminal advocate from Rohri lawyer