Find a Lawyer

AURANGZEB ALIAS GUDDU versus STATE

Sections 302 (b) and 201 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (a) were cognizant of the value of the evidence and the case is fully subject to the accused's extra-judicial confession and recovery. Evidence of the alleged extra-judicial confession was produced by the prosecution's testimony. The victim's mother-in-law was accused on the occasion of G, while she said that the prosecution's witnesses had to be replaced. Even the witness's behavior was unnatural because he had not taken any allegation before when the accused in front of him allegedly confessed that the witness did not go home. On the day the conviction was committed, his father's father and the informed police were told that there was no supporting evidence for the statement of the prosecutor's testimony, or that the extra-judicial confession was a weak type of evidence of any kind. Without coercion it was not enough to maintain any of the articles of punishment such as wrist watch, photo and dead handkerchief, the open space of the house of the accused f rom the accused even though otherwise stated. Articles were not expensive enough to be kept so that they could be used against the accused themselves. Recovering the three bottles lying next to the body of the deceased was of no value as they did not recover at the signal. The complainant's complainant submitted that the suspect had identified the place where he had burnt the body of the deceased, as nothing had been discovered by the police, so no result could be obtained from the prosecution. , Said the evidence was inadmissible because it cannot be considered an exception. The testimony of the law 1984 1984 1984 1984 cannot be relied upon nor40 nor as evidence female advocates from Kotmomin lawyer