Find a Lawyer

ZAFAR IQBAL versus STATE

Sections 302 (b), 392 and 411 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), testimony to the testimony of section 7 evidence or to say that they had not seen the incident, were not brought before the witnesses with regard to the enmity with the accused. Nor is there any evidence presented on the record to show that both the defendant or the witness have a statement against the accused for falsely implicating him. Eyewitnesses provided a very clear and clear picture of the incident. The post-mortem report confirmed the ocular account and confirmed the location, duration and nature of the injuries, as witnesses said, within minutes of the incident. It was informed that the police filed an FIR and arrived at the scene of the arrest of the accused on the spot and arrested the accused. The second factor in strengthening the prosecution case and in the case of prosecution is sufficient. To the extent possible. The circumstances of the trial were enough to create panic among the people of the trial court at the location, in which case, the right of the case was taken to the lawyer for the accused for reviewing the matter in the jurisdiction of the special court. Was, in general, repelled in the case of the sole accused, to be replaced by the victim's addicts and relatives was a rare occurrence In the present case the accused was the only suspect who was arrested on the occasion with a weapon of crime. Went and handed it over to the police. Eyewitnesses who had no grinding ax supported the prosecution's case, citing all the minor details of the witnesses whose presence was natural. criminal advocate from Bagh lawyer