Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKBAR versus STATE

The section 365 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 6 (2) (E) / 7 (E) the most prominent eyewitness abductor, identified both the accused in court and was also expelled. Was. The three witnesses, who were natural witnesses of the incident and who could not be suspected of being a crime, presented the same sequence of events, giving the graphic details of the trial, and presented each other completely. Was confirmed. At the date, time of the incident and their respective locations, a complainant was already known to the complainant's family, was identified by the witnesses in the court and the abductor was recovered on his indication. The FIR was explained and had no significance, the eye witnesses also identified the other accused in the identification test, although it did not specify any role, but did not negate the positive progress. Will be. The eyewitness testimony presented against him during which he described his role in great detail can be overlooked by looking at the overwhelming evidence on record regarding the kidnapping of the abductor. For any other purpose, forcible recovery of the amount allegedly fines the fugitive accused and in the circumstances the punishment of the accused is retained. top civil advocates from Lasbela lawyer