Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus THE STATE

Sections 302/324/319/337 (F) / 353/392/411/453/34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 6 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13D The trial was that a large number of police personnel were present at the scene of the incident to apprehend the suspects, who were first found inside a house, then moved to the complainant's house and then to the accused. Was seen firing on the car. Police also opened fire on the suspects, prosecution witnesses said, but no one had fired that they saw the co-accused armed with a rifle or firing from a car, with the suspect involved in the case. On the basis that he made a small deposit. Evidence from the police station prosecution showed that it could only be gathered that the co-accused's rifle was used in the commission of the crime, but there was no evidence to prove that the co-accused had caught the rifle or the car. Was seen firing. The rifle and ammunition were collected by the accomplices at the police station. In the circumstances, it was neither a piece of evidence nor evidence of it, nor was such evidence available to the accused with criminal prosecution. It was sufficient to connect, in the circumstances, that the accused failed to prove a case against the accused, and in the cases registered against the accused by the trial court, the evidence was fully proved that the accused, along with the main accused, Entered the complainant's house and put the complainant in the car at gunpoint and forced him to operate in the same manner and the incident To help them escape list of advocates from Jandanwala lawyer