Find a Lawyer

SAJID ALI ALIAS SAJU versus STATE

Section 302 and 353 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (a) Benefit of Doubt The suspect was named in the supplementary statement in the date when he was in jail, while the accused was summoned to the inquiry. Was added. All were detained in police custody, then in judicial custody, and so on in the identity parade jail. The accused, at the time of the identity parade, objected that he was kept in police custody for two months, and the prosecution's witnesses were shown Was not even released. The records also show that the accused had testified that they had seen the accused in the jail before the identification parade, to show why the identity parade took place 35 days later. At that point, no light source was available. That it was a dark evening and they could not get a glimpse of the accused. The incident took place just two months after he had named the accused without revealing the source of his information. The fact that the witness picked up the accused in the identification parade, was not enough if he himself was soon If it is not done then it will be linked to the crime. The evidence of the prosecution's witnesses cannot be relied upon after the arrest. The death sentence was given only on the testimony of the witnesses, who identified the accused after 5 months of the incident, and also in the FIR And on the explanation given in the Supplementary Statement, that could not happen. The recovery of the third rifle and 100 live cartridges, apart from being unnatural, had only significant value and was not sufficient to bring a domestic charge in the case of murder, the prosecution failed to keep on record. , Toward the police best advocate from Warah lawyer