Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SAFDAR versus STATE

Sections 302 (b) / 149, 324/149, 353/149 and 148/149 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 7 (a), the definition of evidence of the accused was neither designated in the FIR Nor was his identity established later in any stage of the trial, even the accusation of fugitives against the accused was wrong and through sources of knowledge whose details, characteristics and names of the accused were lost. It was not explained when he was initially accused of being a fugitive. And in his absence the case was run under section 512, CCPC, while he was in fact in another case and was being tried in a court of law before another accused was present. Was mentioned as an unknown person present. He never came to the prosecution's witnesses after the FIR and the registration of the incident and the trial, but no identification parade was ever held to ascertain his involvement in the case and his Despite all the factors, the prosecution's witnesses did not involve the accused, nor did any recovery be implicated in the case, nor was there any co-operation in the prosecution's version against the accused. There was no direct evidence to identify the suspect, nor to the police at any stage as the attacker in the case. Attempts to establish the identity of the accused even in the complainant's statement, which can be taken as a statement of the deceased, even the accused was never named and in the physical characteristics of the accused and the FIR. The evidence did not contradict advocate from Adda Jahan Khan lawyer