Find a Lawyer

SHABBIR ALIAS MOCHHA versus STATE

Sections 365A, 148 and 149 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) Definition of Evidence During the Identity Parade supervised by the Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution's witnesses identified them correctly, statements of the prosecution's witnesses There was no contradiction in the location, time and manner in which the three prosecution witnesses' abduction occurred, all of which were confessed by the witnesses. During the interrogation that they did not know the accused before, the parade identified three criminal cases found to be false with the prosecution witnesses in which the witnesses also correctly identified the accused kidnappers. There was no question of identifying the accused in the case. On the mistaken identity of the accused, the kidnapping for ransom was carried out, and the prosecution's witnesses successfully proved that the accused had put them in illegal custody after the abduction and demanded a ransom. , Through the statements of the prosecution's witnesses, was proved beyond doubt. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was also recovered from the possession of the accused. Such a large sum could not be used to falsely include the accused in the abduction case, when it was said that the legal situation in the case. The issue of gambling should be properly maintained. Was successful in prosecuting the suspects above section 148, 365A, PPC and suspicions filed under Section 7 (e) under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and thereby imprisoning the accused for three years. Was sentenced. Section 148, the PPC, was upheld, but on the basis of its facts and circumstances, the four accused were convicted. us immigration advocates from Chawinda lawyer