Find a Lawyer

SHAFQAT ABBAS AND ANOTHER versus STATE

Sections 302 (b) and 324/34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 law testimony (10 of 1984), Article 40 witnesses to witnesses accused of disclosing to the police during an unreasonably delayed investigation. The sentence was sentenced and sentenced to life imprisonment, which the High Court upheld for the two accused while one was acquitted by the accused, as witnesses' statement was recorded with a delay of four months. And one of the suspects was revealed in police custody. Evidence of eyewitnesses such as the identity of the accused and their description, etc., and the answers given by such witness to the role attributed to them by the witness, contradicts. And have faced material doubts. It has been stated that he did not disclose the names of the accused, etc. to the complainant or to the police or to any other person at the place where he was present with the injured persons or even at the place of police presence overnight. There he remained, and later on no one else could even rely on the testimony of such a witness to punish him. In the absence of collusion from any other source, who was wanted in the case, one of the accused involved the other accused in connection with the alleged disclosure, crime, before the investigating officer, without any further investigation being made. Yes. Truth or false content was unforgettable and unpredictable. Taking advantage of the skepticism of the accused, he was entitled to acquit and was acquitted by the court of justice by keeping aside the punishment and punishment he received. registration advocate from Chacklala lawyer