Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FAISAL ALIAS PEHALWAN versus STATE

Section 302 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 Evidence Evidence The prosecution's witness was neither located nor working at the scene of the incident, but on his way to the mosque to pay Friday prayers. Was. He was neither a sovereign nor a straightforward person nor a zealous witness. Evidence of such testimony requires careful and careful scrutiny and it would be safe to rely on such testimony without independent revolt, which lacked the evidence of the witness. , Otherwise, because of many natural defects internally weakened, the trust was not encouraged; other than the sole witness's own claim, no evidence of his presence at the scene of the incident was supported. Gone, all such circumstances created a serious doubt about his presence. Even though the location of the incident was unnatural, it provided ample justification for the suspicion that the NGS did not value the evidence about the identity parade before the magistrate on the occasion. Was because the magistrate said that witnesses, suspects and dummies were presented to him as well as identification of the removal of handcuffs and mufflers was also investigated in the memo of the parade. The intrinsically weak and naturally defective ocular evidence of the prosecutor's witness could not be improved by the evidence of the identification parade, which was not free of defects, and another weak piece of evidence could not be improved. That the evidence of the complainant's hearing was inadmissible and that, while in the custody of the police, the accused could not identify the location of the incident. lawer from fb area from Saidu Sharif lawyer