Find a Lawyer

SHAKEEL AHMAD versus THE STATE

Section 302 (b) / 324/353 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 7 (a) (b) of testimony was not mentioned in the police station but after more than two hours in the civil hospital. The distance between the incident and the police station was one kilometer and the incident took place in a densely populated area surrounded by houses and shops, but no person in the eligible area was cited or proved to prove the matter. Submitted by the prosecution, neither were its co-accused. His name was listed in the FIR, while an unidentified record stated that the accused had a friendship, classmates, caste-type relationship or was involved in any matter with his co-accused. There was no joint intention, only the co-accused was. Under section 392, the accused was to be arrested for being a designated suspect in the case; According to A, two suspects were named in the FIR in connection with the shooting of the accused while the third was unidentified, but in the supplementary statement, allegedly recorded on the same day, two persons were shown as unknown. The prosecutor had expressed concern that the more people could be declared under the Investigation Officer, the more people Determined to testify, it was likely that the investigating officer, who was seeking revenge from the accused, had directed his subordinates to falsely implicate the accused in the case, alleging at least 7/8 shots. The victim was shot dead attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Nowshero Feroz lawyer