Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUSTAFA versus DAROO KHAN

Section 417 of the Prohibition Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302 (b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 6 (i), 7 (h) was the only reasoning for the prosecution of the prosecution under section 161. There were statements of witnesses. , CRPC, was recorded five days after the incident when it was said that the delay was explained but no accused has been accused of allegedly falsifying the accused. There is no motive, the statements recorded by the prosecution witnesses after five days were credible, with the explanatory statement, while the said witnesses also identified the accused during the identification parade, all but one of the accused. Three eyewitnesses have been identified, saying more evidence was supported by the recovery of blood-stained clothing, Kalashnikov said. The cartridges as well as the inquiry report were presented, positive evidence, Aga was available in the circumstances excluding any of the persons involved in the trial, who were included in the case. Identifying the parade, the trial records recorded during the trial were misleading in the circumstances, not readable and not sustainable, in these circumstances the verdict was obtained. The special judge of the Special Court of the Gardi, excluding the one accused, was declared guilty of the crime, since all the accused except one accused. Had committed the crime with a general intention and it was not known which of the accused was killed, the accused was killed and read to PPC along with Section 7 (h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, PPC to everyone criminal advocate from Haripur lawyer