Find a Lawyer

MADAD ALI versus STATE

Section 302 (b) / 337h (ii) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (a) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 (e) Convention e Martyrs (10 of 1984), The testimony of Article 133 was recorded in the evidence-led examination of three witnesses and their cross-examination was safe, but after that they did not appear before the court for questioning because they had passed the law testimony in the 1984 article. 133 of the Act. The accused accused of cross-examining these witnesses, but the prosecutor failed to present them before the court, and the valuable and deserving right given to the accused under the law was denied, in these circumstances. Without examination, witnesses could not make statements of witnesses, Article 133 of the Law Sha testimony 1984 should be declared as complete statements and cannot be interpreted as legal statements. It is said that his statements have lost their obvious value, which cannot be considered for any purpose. In the present case, the complainant's case was exaggerated, contradictory and contradictory to his statement in the FIR. In the story of the prosecutor, the complainant exaggerated important facts in his examination so that the matter could have been improved. The complainant's evidence clearly indicated that in the FIR to change his story and strengthen the prosecution's case. Such contradictions and improvements in the complainant's evidence raised doubts about its authenticity and such contradictory statement could not have been so. Relying on the complainant's evidence was also contradictory to the medical evidence. solicitors from Narang Mandi lawyer