Find a Lawyer

SAEED AHMED versus STATE

Section 302 (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (a) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 (d) The benefit of the doubt in the value of the evidence is serious between the parties and the three witnesses. Controversy exists Ocular evidence was very closely related to each other, interest in the situation, enmity and hatred of the accused, and before relying on the evidence of such witnesses, their evidence had to be divergent from other evidence, The statements of the two witnesses were recorded after the delay. Day 17 and the prosecutor offered no explanation for the delay, which led both to say that the witnesses have denied the available evidence on record and in the conduct of the witnesses who say the witnesses appeared unusual and unnatural. And from their behavior, their presence was suspected. The location and timing of the incident were in direct conflict with the evidence of another witness to the recovery evidence, which contained a record of the investigation, was tampered with and altered to suit the circumstances of the case and It turned out that the investigation was altered to create a false record and manipulate the evidence so that the evidence of the other two witnesses in the case was present. Not dependent, unconfirmed conviction, under the circumstances, such evidence cannot be prosecuted because the prosecution has failed to prove the oral evidence and, beyond any reasonable doubt, the prosecution's case was highly suspect. Failing to prove the case, the appeal allowed the accused to be punished and punished inheritance advocates near Kumbh lawyer