Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN versus STATE

Section 302 (b) / 324/109/392/34 Suppressing Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV or 1975), Section 7 Evidence Recovery Detected by Two Courts Minor Contradictions of Each Accused Six people were charged with six counts of conspiracy to murder, after the end of the trial, all six accused were sentenced by the trial court and sentenced by the trial court on two counts. Was heard and sentenced by the trial court. Different roles were attributed to the different accused and there were contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There have been several findings by the two courts regarding the crime of the accused, which was based on the authentic principles of criminal administration in the court, which was sought by natural and true witnesses. Excerpts from independent sources The Supreme Court found no negligence in the prosecution The statements of witnesses had little significance and contradictions because the guilt or innocence of a person was decided based on the overall circumstances of the case and At the conclusion of the evidence, the case of the four accused was prominent. Of the two suspects, the two victims were identified as having a special role in setting the wounds on fire, which proved fatal to their lives. The accused was retained, while the remaining four accused were reduced from death to life imprisonment and accordingly the appeal was allowed. jobs for fresh advocates from Pir Mahal lawyer