Find a Lawyer

RAMZAN ALIAS JANI versus STATE

Sections 302 (b) / 34 and 392/34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), appreciating the evidence of section 7 (a), witnesses at the relevant time had no opportunity to be present. Until he was convinced of the exact number of accused, the eye witnesses only became witnesses to the incident because of their relationship with the deceased and the story narrated by them was suspicious of the witnesses. Who has identified the accused. The light in the bulb and the light in the moonlight were not credible; the absence of enmity alone could not prevent the eyewitnesses from testifying as long as their evidence had no individual value that had no current appearance. The death of the deceased, of course, did not prove that the medical evidence was caused by fireworks injuries, but he did not link the suspect to his death and, thus, to support the ocular testimony. To no avail Their role in the crime was of no use to the witnesses, the identity parade, or to no avail, as witnesses could not be denied even before the identity parade was held. The matching weapon was unusual in that it was actually used in the commission of the crime to confirm, other recoveries from the suspects have not been disclosed on the record saying they belonged to the perpetrators. There were no assistants to the prosecution, the suspects were acquitted in the circumstances inheritance advocates near Mari Indus lawyer