Find a Lawyer

AMIR BUX versus STATE

Sections 302, 324, 427, 392 and 34 of the Counter Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 7 (1) (a) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), section 13 (d), a diversified piece of evidence The clear value of the charge against the accused / appellant, the realm of the footprint expert's identification of the status test evidence, was that on the night of the incident, on the highway, they started firing on the vehicle that killed and injured the complainant. Died, both were traveling with the police in the aforementioned vehicle. The foot tracker tracked the footprints of the suspects and arrested them in the forest and recovered unlicensed weapons from their possession. The accused were sentenced by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Although the incident was upheld, they did not identify the accused. After witnessing the witnesses at the trial court at the time of the incident, witnesses said they could not say whether the accused was the real culprit. The accused / appellant was not held before a magistrate, regarding the third accused / appellant's identity test, which was later arrested, which was conducted before the magistrate, the adviser said. Both witnesses have identified the accused, but both did not state that the identity of the third suspect was tested before a magistrate or that he identified the suspect as one of the perpetrators of the crime. If not tested, it was a controversial piece of evidence, but when there was no evidence, it was there. There is nothing left to identify, which shows in the form of an identity test advocate for immigration from Kurram lawyer