Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ALIAS BAGGA versus STATE

Evidence was appreciated on the basis of a quick report by Section 302 (b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 7, in an injured condition, which included two persons besides the present accused. Named as the original intruder, one of them was shown as the real culprit who threw acid on the victim's body and because of burning the acid, it was said that the FIR had been advised or advised earlier. The FIR cannot be understood at this time, the wife and her father, who was shown in their report as an eyewitness to the presence of the victim, received the nomination. The presence of Mum and his involvement was not supported, thus, either the informant was a liar and the wrongdoer who suffered the wounds without being subjected to the wounds was named on the basis of mere suspicion. Or if the witnesses were hiding the truth, the investigation was not conducted on the proper lines and deviated from the straight line. There was no real reason to plan, which could have led the current suspect to commit such a felony crime of throwing acid on his beard, with his sister's life being brought to justice by extra relations. Witness of confession was made. The informant and the enmity of the accused's family were not reliable, which materially differed with each other while giving the details of the extra-judicial confession, the independent witness said that the confession was committed by the prosecution, Was also not supported. Strong evidence will be recovered from the pond by the bucket used to throw acid on the victim immigration advocates phone number from More kunda lawyer