Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD GULZAR versus THE STATE

Sections 302 (b) / 34, 392/34 and 411 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), complimenting the S-7 evidence were not reported to the police for two days until someone recovered his body. The murder was an unknown one The prosecution had failed to determine a date, time or place; the body of the deceased was recovered from a sugarcane field which neither the owner nor he had nor had It was not recovered, as indicated. The defendant's record did not show that the suspect was seen throwing the body at his or her recovery location, for the last time witnesses were witnesses of the occasion whose testimony contradicted the medical evidence and did not affect any credibility. Identifying the victim driven by the joint disclosure and identifying the accused was of no identifiable value; no person in the eligible area was involved in the recovery despite the availability. The averages that were allegedly recovered on the occasion of the accused were made an accused, and there was no benefit to the prosecutor's circumstances in which the deceased found his death mysteriously immersed and the medical evidence was somehow Did not associate the suspect with him. The accused were acquitted of the crime tax advocates from Patika lawyer