Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAHID HANIF versus STATE

Sections 302 (b) and 34 of the Counter Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6 (a) and 7 (i) (a) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 (d) of the definition of evidence The case consisted of a single witness who was the driver of the deceased's vehicle and his statement was fully supported by the medical evidence and the complainant; the evidence was restored on four pieces; Acular account; Identity test; Confessions; and recovery. It was confirmed by the victim's wife and another person who was the son of the victim that the prosecution's witness said the incident completely established minor contradictions in the prosecution's testimony. Could not have influenced the fact that other evidence of the evidence had been aided and corroborated, the witness was a natural witness and had no motive or to falsely implicate such abusive accused. There was no reason. There was no hostility between the witnesses and the accused, delay of a few hours in recording the evidence was not fatal for hourly evidence, the prosecution provided circumstantial ocular testimony, which was examined by the magistrate magistrate. Who completed all the ceremonies and met the requirements of the law. And no formal identification of the test was done by the magistrate in proportion to the proportional rituals, while after recording the confession of the accused magistrate, the accused gave him two hours to reflect and then he again. They were separately warned, but the accused was ready to confess to their crime, the confession of the accused was supported by the crime and they were confirmed by other pieces of evidence of the charges. Confession statement female advocates from Sehar Baqlas lawyer