Sections 384, 385 and 386 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 exonerate a person in fear of death or severe suffering and terrorism, the definition of evidence has been particularly strong by the prosecution over the years. The accused's cell phone was made at which the complainant contacted himself or was called from such cell phone number but did not present any evidence or complainant in the form of such number data. Investigating the money demanding claims, the investigating officer made no attempt to inquire about the person in whose name such a SIM was issued. The accused was found to have no phone at the time of the proceedings. The prosecution failed to prove that the alleged bribe of the kiln was paid to the accused. The alleged SIM was in the name of the accused. It was alleged that the complainant approached. And in the absence of such factors, if the accused ever demanded an allowance from the complainant, it would not be safe to argue that the prosecutor had proved that the accused had, according to his statement under Section 342 of the prosecution, proved the accused. Could not succeed, the CCP was only 15 years of age. No conviction can be sustained on such evidence where direct evidence was not valid, affected by the conviction and the trial by the Natural High Court. The conviction and sentence given by the court were set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charge. Yep
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
