Find a Lawyer

KHURRAM MUSHTAQ versus STATE

Sections 365A & 302 (b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), sections 7 (c) and 7 (a) define the evidence as anything other than a death sentence before the victim's abductor death. The source did not support its material details. None of the witnesses of the prosecution's evidence knew the accused by name or face, therefore, the identity of the accused by the names of the deceased was not sufficient in the absence of evidence that the accused was the same person as the deceased. At the time of the incident, the prosecution witness did not clearly see the accused's faces in the car, conducting the identification test several months after the incident, was extremely suspicious even otherwise, the identification test evidence Was lost as a controversial piece of paper. The full impact of this was because the key evidence in this case was denied, the prosecution's witnesses exaggerated and refined the story to fit the circumstances of the case, which was unusual. They cannot be relied upon to identify the accused. The presence of witnesses was not established at any place of crime by any independent and credible source; the person who was taken to the car in the state of unconsciousness of the witness was not identified, he was accompanied by the abductor. The prosecution's witness had a strong intention of making false accusations in this case. The victim was not in a good position to make a statement in the hospital after he died in this case, not more than three months delay in filing an FIR Was. There is a lot of explanation given by the prosecution and the possibility of this cannot be ruled out even after proper consultation. online advocate from Qazi Ahmed lawyer