Find a Lawyer

YARD versus THE STATE

Sections 392/411/34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (b) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13D Accidental testimony and property of vehicle snatching against the accused accused of defining evidence Was based on recovery. , Since the prosecution's witness fully supported the prosecution's case, as the FIR revealed that the suspect was arrested in the presence of the complainant only after the incident, two Rangers officers investigating the prosecution's witnesses As such, the complainant was fully supported and supported, and their evidence was further supported by the adviser. The investigating officer before whom the accused and the property had been prepared further supported the complainant's statement and two independent witnesses testified that the evidence on record was beyond any doubt that by the three accused. The burning vehicle was questioned at Pistol Point. After the complaint and then pursued by the Rangers, the vehicle was subjected to cross-examination of all witnesses after the incident, but nothing came on the record to discredit their evidence, saying the witness was natural and independent. They had no hostility from the accused nor suggested any hostility when the witnesses had no reason, reason or intention to falsely accuse the accused. But there was no preparation for the arrest and recovery of the prisoner. The Rangers personnel, who were neither police officers nor investigating the case, had no casualties in the prosecution's case. The contradiction indicated by the defense was trivial and had nothing to do with the actual crime. solicitors from Pindi bhohri lawyer