Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RIAZUL versus THE STATE

Sections 302 (a), 302 (b) and 353 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), defining Section 7 evidence as the main culprit of four murders, especially in the immediately-listed FIR Was nominated. The FIR was also consistent with the claim by the complainant and other eyewitnesses that the gun was recovered from the suspect at the time of the incident. Witnesses can identify the suspect immediately after the incident. Eyewitness testimony consisted of constant and straightforward statements made in the light of the torch, which had no personal hostility to the accuser of making false allegations. Ocular testimony was confirmed by the accused. Medical evidence not only allegedly stole state property but also purchased four forest dealers, Timont, who, while performing his official duties, went to his home to recover stolen wood. Opportunity to make any mitigation was not available; evidence required as per section 30, PP, PPC, conviction of accused under section 2302 (a); The PC, however, would have confirmed his death sentence on four counts pakistani advocates Sohawa District Jelum lawyer