Find a Lawyer

ATTAULLAH ALIAS QASIM versus STATE

Section 302 (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (i) (a) Complainant and other eye witnesses, looking at the value of the evidence, were the natural witnesses who were the compounds in the deceased doctor's clinic, The witnesses in the presence of both said the time and the incident were not denied, the complainant fully supported the prosecution's case and gave details of the incident. The complainant's evidence was also natural because he presented facts that he had actually seen at the scene of the incident and did not exaggerate the facts. Both witnesses were supporting each other and testifying to the prosecution's witnesses. There was no enmity with the accused and even the accused did not suggest any enmity to them, the prosecution witnesses, in the incident, had no motive, reason or reason to falsely implicate the accused with the crime of the crime. Were. There was no contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the fact that the accused's beard was kept at the time of the identification documents. t, ocular testimony cannot be excluded carefully. Ocular testimony was a test of identity, which was enough to involve the accused in the commission of the crime. The offense against the accused was punishable with death penalty under Section 7 (i) (a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the matter was to be dealt with according to the prevailing law when the offense was committed. The appropriate punishment was given and the accused were convicted. Criminal conviction, conviction and conviction confirmed by trial court attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Kashmore lawyer