Find a Lawyer

ALTAF KHAN versus STATE

Sections 342, 365, 452 and 34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) were the only eyewitness testimony of the incident which was the complainant of this case and neither the amount of evidence needed to be decided The criminal case and the inadmissible evidence of a single witness can be relied upon to compel a person to be sentenced to death even if the complainant was a good person and the accused was employed as the driver of his car. Was given by a colleague of his co-accused, kidnapped the complainant from his house and locked him in a room for several hours, During this time he allegedly committed bodily harm to the complainant and forced him to blackmail and sign some documents so that the complainant had proper ownership. In addition, although the trial court acquitted the accused under section 377 for payment of huge sums as a ransom hearing, the PPC medical report was not positive, but the fact is that the complainant was abducted by the accused internally. And was held in illegal detention for several hours, the complainant's statement proved that the accused was involved in the case because he wanted to leave the job as the complainant's car driver, while the complainant Never wanted to do it Therefore, it can be said that the defense plea was irrational. It was unbelievable that a master would induce his driver to commit such an abusive crime that he never intended to quit. There was no single question during the cross examination, which was placed before the complainant us immigration advocates from Liaquat Pur lawyer