Find a Lawyer

SYED IMTIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH versus STATE

Section 302 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), definition of section 7, conviction of evidence, reduction of complainant, who was the real brother of the deceased and the second of the prosecution witness who was his close relative Was living at a distance of kilometers. At the scene of the incident, both said eyewitnesses were not present at the scene of the incident, and most of them were witnesses to the occasion, both said that witnesses did not explain their presence on the spot with any reasonable explanation for the incident. , The FIR was not listed. The complainant immediately claimed that he was taken to the hospital for medical examination on rickshaw, adding that the investigating officer did not conduct a neutral investigation as he had not joined the investigating officer. The deceased was taken to a hospital. Despite the fact that he was the most important witness, the incident did not occur in the manner described by the pro-security witnesses who were not present on the spot. The incident took place in the market located in the Ganjanabad area and the number of persons in the incident. But no independent witness was presented to support the prosecution version, with no person / shopkeeper at the scene of the incident, the prosecutor cited as a witness. And their names were not shown in the FIR, both witnesses who were associated with the deceased. The spectacles of the case were introduced as witnesses despite the fact that they failed to give a reasonable explanation for their presence on the ocular account presented by the failed prosecution, which was not credible under the circumstances. immigration advocates phone number from Fateh Pur lawyer