Find a Lawyer

MIAN DAD LEGHARI versus STATE

Sections 302 (b) / 149 and 364/149 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (a) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 (e), the testimony of three witnesses None of the complainants, including the complainant in the FIR, were given ocular testimony to the contradictions of the murder, statements under Section 161, CRPC and deposition of witnesses in the court, it was suspected that the witnesses had earlier filed their testimonies. There were significant reforms to the statements. The court, with some interest and encouragement, did not list the names of the four accused who fired at the victim, nor did the complainant mention the weapons used in the shootings and the private prosecution. All of the witnesses were closely related to both victims. The major reforms made by the complainant and eyewitnesses in their statements, the possibility of manipulation of the case by the non-participation of independent witnesses, were significantly suggested by the eyewitnesses to strengthen the prosecution's case. Better statements, his credibility was lost and the identification value was calculated, the suspect was not sealed at the place of recovery, his recovery was suspected and 26 days of unlawful sending of a gun emptiness were recovered. Being delayed and vacated for expert opinion, there was no help in litigation from this place, The apparent value of the said recoveries was severely damaged; the accused was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances. family advocate from Feroz Watan lawyer