Find a Lawyer

ALI MUHAMMAD versus STATE

The accused accused of the Sections 302, 324 and 353 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), sections 6 and 7 were not known to the complainant before the incident and their names were disclosed by two witnesses in the affidavit. One of the witnesses did not support the version given either by the complainant about the fact of the incident, nor according to the prosecutor's case in the FIR, Special Prosecutor Evidence provided by the special witness said That the witness was declared hostile, but that the fact of the incident not only damaged the basis of the prosecution's case, but also that it was presented by other witnesses. Ridda's account of the incident was declared suspicious, another prosecutor's witness admitted during a cross-examination that the suspects did not know about it before. It is said that the prosecution's witness did not name and name the accused in connection with the shooting of the deceased. The statement of the prosecution's witnesses contradicted each other on the material details of the requirements of the law that the prosecutor was obliged to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt. And if any single and slight suspicion has been raised, then the benefit should reach the accused and it is sufficient to justify the litigation that despite the presence of free persons in the vicinity at the relevant time, No one was examined as a witness in this case. To support the prosecution's case on the fact of the incident, all such circumstances rendered the prosecution's case doubtful, based on the interest of the prosecution's witnesses, the unjustified, untrustworthy, untrustworthy, unreliable, inciting incident. immigration advocates from Rawat lawyer