Find a Lawyer

GUL HASSAN versus STATE

Section (a) Explosive Substances Act (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 324, 427 and 114 of the Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), the accusation of the evidence was that the person entered the mosque and then detonated. The check post happened and the people who were allegedly present and hugging each other was 8 feet. If the police constable with a weapon was so close, he did not appeal to the general public that the culprit was a In hugging and bashing the other so loudly that a person standing at a distance of 7 or 8 feet could hear their voice, no evidence was led by the prosecutor to indicate that The bombing may have been caused by the person who entered the mosque, especially since the death sentence could not be decided simply by speculation or speculation, both were witnesses to the police. Compiled and their evidence was not proven by the prosecution's other witness, or by a private person, the prosecutor did not provide any evidence to link the alleged suicide bomber to the accused. The crime test did not link to the identity of the accused was a controversial piece of evidence. If molecular testimony is denied, no conviction can be imposed on mere identification tests; in the present case, at most, the identity test in relation to the accused will have the effect that he or she is merely a person at that location. Was seen hugging. The incident, which was not a crime-detection test in itself, would not carry any particular weight under the circumstances of the case. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused, the accused under trial. jobs for fresh advocates from Chaman lawyer