Find a Lawyer

ATTAULLAH versus STATE

Section 302 (b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 7 (a) defines the evidence in the case of three prosecution cases. ocular testimony; identification test; two of the prosecution's witnesses told Akhol's account that they both gave different meeting points; both witnesses agreed that the two motorcycles came from their rear and headed towards the incident, saying Witnesses did not get a chance to see the faces of the motorcyclists mentioned above. It was a little dark and they were coming from the prosecution's witnesses who were not able to see the incident as they were allegedly present where they were allegedly present in the case. Can't be denied. At the time of the incident, the prosecution's witnesses were not established by anyone who was present. It is alleged that both witnesses have been constituted as witnesses, there is no denying that the evidence has been endorsed by other pieces of evidence and evidence. Available on record, the prosecution's witnesses are credible and untrustworthy, there is no restriction on their evidence. The evidence can be placed that the dummies that were mixed with one of the defendants are recalled to other defendants. When combined with their identity tests, the identity test could not be termed as an identity test that met the requirements of the law. On the contrary, it would be against the spirit of the identity test; the prosecution witnesses saw the faces of the dummies very clearly and momentarily before the identification test, contradicting the two witnesses in such an identification test. power of attorney advocate Gakhar Mandi lawyer