Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ALI ALIAS SHAHZAD versus THE STATE

Section 324/332/353/148/149/186 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXV of 1997), testimony of section 7 evidence was supported by all prosecutor's witnesses Prosecution's version of the prosecution's story The arrest of the accused and The recovery of the weapons was fully confirmed. Recovering ammunition from their possession, the witnesses had the full backing of the recovered police force, which was not active with the rioters, in which case there was no slight reason for the accused to be falsely accused, no one around, Was drawn to the crime scene. In the event that false testimony was not compiled, the absence of any public witness could not be considered a death sentence for the prosecution because all of their testimony was used by the prosecution to establish charges against the accused. There is no reason to doubt the reputation of Defendants in their defense were not available at the scene at the time of the incident, the statements made by the witnesses were baseless and meaningless. The accused pleaded that he was in police custody prior to the alleged incident, but could not produce a single witness to prove his plea that could not be relied on for a baseless claim that was rejected. No serious defects or defects were found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the accused did not show any seriousness in their statements, the prosecution's story looks legitimate and possible except in the case of their co-accused. He was convicted. The co-accused said nothing was recovered from the court, though he was arrested on the spot immigration advocates contact from Jamshoro lawyer