Find a Lawyer

QURBAN ALI versus STATE

Validating the provisions of Sections 555A, 4 334 and Anti 34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), the three accused were convicted of the crime in an identification test with their specific roles, All the testimony of the prosecution was very subjective. Long scrutiny, but the defense could not substantiate their evidence; no evidence contradicts or contradicts their evidence. Was. The car in which the victim was taken was told that the evidence was unauthorized and uncontrollable, that all pieces of evidence showed the plaintiff's involvement in the kidnapping commission and the defense lawyer prosecuting witnesses Could not shake the evidence, the evidence and the role assigned to the accused, he made it clear that all of them, except one, whose involvement did not prove to beyo suspected of any reasonable suspicion, were abducted. And it was said that different roles were assigned to different sets of suspects in order to achieve the objective, it is clear from the above facts that the accused was abducted. A detailed plan was developed to achieve the purpose of the abduction. And according to the plan, he said that the punishment of the accused would be the same regardless of the role of each of them. The case against him was proved. Except for one; he committed the offense punishable under section 7 (e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and was read with Section 365 / A, PPC and famous high court advocate from Lalshanra lawyer