Find a Lawyer

HAJI ARIF versus STATE

Articles 302 (b), 324 and 34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 6 (2) (a) (b) evidence testimony The benefit of the suspect was stated by both prosecutors' witnesses. And then the fugitives started firing. Both of them stated that the prosecution witnesses to the extent of the poles, they were not supported by medical evidence, none of the casualties and the injured were injured with a bullet or sharp weapon and both witnesses. Details of the injuries to the shoulder or sharp arms were not given, nor were they. General charges were leveled against the accused and the cause of any particular character or injury from any of the accused leagues and both witnesses prosecuted each other, statements of both the prosecution witnesses were denied by medical evidence, 4 / After the delay, the FIR of the accused was registered. It cannot be ruled out for 5 hours and the possibility that the FIR was lodged after consideration, which raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The purpose of the parties and the complainant was to spread the net by spreading the net by involving all the male members of the place in which the incident took place, many immediately after the incident. People gathered there, but even though no independent witnesses were examined in this case and no reason was given for not presenting independent witnesses, the prosecution's witnesses were with both defendants. Worse, their evidence cannot be relied upon without any strong corroborating evidence. The location of the event was extremely dubious because how to become a advocate from Sanghi lawyer