Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus STATE

Sections 302 (b), 324, 353, 148 and 149 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXV of 1997), Section 7 (a) Definition of evidence Benefits direct evidence of suspicion, Impeachment charge against the accused / appellant It was reported that the accused had committed the murder of three policemen, causing police members to be injured in the fire. In the crossfire between the raiding party / suspects / robbers and policemen / appellant, three co-accused killed and four co-accused escaped, accused / appellant was sentenced, sentenced to death, several statements made imprisonment and trial. Court arrests three eyewitnesses, prosecutors were presented to prove the ocular account, which confessed that nobody saw the police shootings nor did any witnesses specifically say At the time of the incident, the appellant was firing on the police party. Witnesses said the only effect was that the suspect started firing from inside the house, killing three policemen and injuring two policemen in the street with the crime, which the suspect allegedly shot at his own. Was taken along, not even mentioned in the witnesses' statements. The only evidence against the accused / appellant was that the accused was arrested on the spot while the names of the policemen who arrested the accused were not disclosed even where the accused was arrested. It was also not mentioned in the site plan, only the evidence of the three eyewitnesses was not sufficient to prove the accused against the accused. By chance immigration advocates contact from Chaman lawyer