Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MOOSA CHHUTO versus THE STATE

Section 365 A / 148/149/109 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), the evidence of Section 7 alleged kidnapping and the prosecution's testimony were corroborated by unlawful complainant and prosecution witnesses. The anticipated statement proved that he was abducted after the abduction. The kidnappers, the accused, demanded ransom money from the kidnapper's father, and that the three suspects had actually kidnapped the kidnapper and the other two men guarded the house where the kidnapper was kept. It was reported that these individuals had jointly objected to the crime. The witnesses were subjected to cross-examination in which clarification and explanation of the incident was made. No animosity was suggested between the witnesses and the prosecution witnesses, nor was the purpose of falsely implicating the accused by the witnesses. Told. In order to act as a conscience available at the site of the arrest of the accused, but he refused to do so, the evidence of the policemen in the absence of malpractice against the police officers was credible, as the policemen were also Like the citizens who were good witnesses, the contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was trivial by the accused persons, whereby the completion of the case and the story of the prosecution were not altered. Such contradictions that could be present in the evidence, were ignored. Can the witnesses see the suspect before the identification test, was repulsed? Because there was no indication of any evidence which the prosecution witnesses had recognized this fact, but the opposite was also presented proposals for witnesses top advocates from Kotla Pathan lawyer