Section & and (i) Definition of Evidence of Terrorism Act The complainant filed a lawsuit for Khulla and alleged that her husband and other persons had lodged a complaint in the court premises on the day of the incident. The accused sentenced him to five years in prison under Section 7 (i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, while the complainant's husband and another co-accused were acquitted. The prosecuting prosecution could not establish its case against the accused without reasonable doubt. The accused who pardoned the accused for the alleged crime pleaded guilty. Suspected that the accused needed to be extended to the trial court, wrongfully dismissing the suspect with the benefit of the doubt and convicting the accused under section 7 (i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. There is no record of the impression that the alleged act of the accused is gross misconduct. A trial hearing that triggered a feeling of terror and public insecurity in the public, the trial court applied for section 6 of the Anti Terrorism Act 1997. Was silent on the matter, while the trial court did not observe anything about the gravity of the alleged crime. The accused was convicted by the trial court and acquitted of the charge but appeals were allowed under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
