Find a Lawyer

GHULAM AKBAR versus STATE

Sections 302, 392, 394 and 34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), a Section 7 defense lawyer examined the three witnesses thoroughly, but nothing came on the record to discredit their evidence, The testimony of the witnesses was inconsistent. All material details of the case were confirmed by the complainant, one of the prosecution's witnesses was present at the scene of the incident and saw that the statement of such witness was fully supported and the other two, the defendant's Witnesses testified. Natural witnesses and their presence at the scene of the incident cannot be doubted, the prosecutor, in the circumstances, proved the incident identification test, which according to the magistrate was in the presence of two advisers, but which met the requirements of the law. Could not Appropriate and legal tests were not conducted and their apparent costs were lost to the prosecution, failing to prove the circumstances in which the three prosecution witnesses against the accused had fully proved that the accused was in possession. The motorcycle was looted when the assassin's robbery was set up at the commission of his murder, which was recovered from a joint standpoint and recovered from the possession of the two accused. The joint restoration of the motorcycle was, in the circumstances of the trial, an admissible evidence that could be safely relied on in the evidence of Section H. And chemical analysts report that the incident turned out to be vacant, the pistol recovered from the suspect was used in connection with the murder of the deceased jeep. ask a advocate free from Haveli Lakha lawyer