Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RIAZ versus STATE

Sections 302, 324; 337 H (ii); F (iii), 452, 148, 149 and 109 Police Orders [22 of 2002], Article 151 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997); Section 7 Definition of Evidence Examining the ocular account presented by the prosecution witnesses, it appeared that they were not present on the occasion, saying that the witnesses were also not eligible for dependence as they did not see the perpetrator's false involvement in the incident. The Inquirer Officer immediately recovered 26 Kalashnikov cases from the scene of the inspection. No crime was recovered from the 244 or 303 bore rifles. Each of the suspects was assigned a role for injuring only one person, suspected or injured as a result of the Kalashnikov outbreak. Such behavior was unusual and the attackers were not expected to fire a shot. And to give others a chance because it wasn't a shooting competition. The women were not independent of the injured witnesses and were made under the influence of their influence upon recovery of male members, were not sent to the forensic science laboratory to match the absence of a vacancy. Each recovery was unknown, two of the suspects were elderly people who were not expected to get their hands at that age at midnight. The physical remand of the accused was not obtained by the Investigation Officer due to his old age and after the failure of the health, the prosecution failed to produce sufficient material to link the accused with reasonable doubt. And the punishment for the accused was given to him. Doubt online advocate from Karore Lalisan lawyer