Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD versus STATE

In view of the value of the SS 302, 396 and 392 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13D evidence, witnesses did not have any hostility or enmity against the accused. He was also accused of being criminally charged. Ocular testimony from natural witnesses on the factory premises, along with other criminals, regularly equipped with pistols to pay back the amount of salary they were distributing to factory workers, and indeed robbery committing such robbery. He suffered a gunshot wound during a trust-hit incident, which he failed to explain, and the defense prosecution taken by him standing outside the factory premises were forged. Was given, the evidence of the prosecution created confidence, the delay in filing in this case FIR was not fatal The accused did not examine any person in support of his defense request. It cannot be said that under Section 392, the culprits of the accused were properly picked up. The circumstances were maintained, but under which he was sentenced to ten years' RI and reduced to seven years, however, the accused did not prove the murder. The recovery of the watchman and the licensed firearm from his possession was not without a doubt, resulting in the accused being subjected to Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Sections 302 and 396 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, PPC He was acquitted of the charges. list of supreme court advocates from Dera Murad Jamali lawyer