Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD USMAN versus THE STATE

Section 302/353 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 occurred in the dark night and the prosecution failed to prove the availability of the electric bulb on the spot, the complainant and the prosecution's witness admitted The victim, who was a police officer, was not in the police uniform at the scene of the incident and the investigating officer failed to disclose that the deceased had gone on official duty at the relevant time, the prosecution's witness admitted. It was raining at the relevant time, it was not possible for this place to be located in an open public place to grab blood by cotton. What public witness was not cited and was not charged, which was examined by the prosecution, which has created serious doubts about the incident. No specific details / details of the accused were provided by the prosecution by the complainant or the prosecution witness, except that the accused of the physical structure were not identified by their alleged role but the accused was already in another case. Arrested and both witnesses were police officers, it cannot be ruled out that they had seen the accused before the identification parade. , The defendant's home could not be relied on to maintain the conviction of a pistol, the key of which was already with the investigating officer and that house was also opened by the investigating officer and was not associated with any public witness in the area. Was. Recovery Procedure Section 103, CCPC's provisions that violated the recovery process, did not depend on the recovery of the pistol. law websites from Minchanabad lawyer