Find a Lawyer

SYED HASHIM ALI versus STATE

Articles 302, 365 and 377 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 6 (c) Evidence of the Law (10 of 1984), Article 40 Definition of Proof There was no eyewitness testimony to the incident; Which was not enough. The basic principle of universal application in cases to justify a crime against the accused was to justify the identification of the crime, the fact of the crime being the innocence of the accused or the compatibility of another person's crime. And should not be able to explain. Except for his guilt on any other reasonable speculation, if there was evidence of circumstance, no link should remain in the chain and in all cases should cause the crime of the accused, the statement of both witnesses was not supported. And was not confirmed by the advisor instead. The incident, which was an independent witness and in whose presence the police spotted the incident and it was difficult to rely on anyone, provided two contradictory statements regarding the location of the incident. Shahadat, meaning that Article 40 of 1984 cannot be said to be an inquiry, was the legal requirement of the PC, before recording the statement under Section 164. Syed's statement could not be considered as a solid piece of evidence. The statement was not justified in relying on it. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused. Gone top advocates from Vehari lawyer