Sections 302 (b), 34, 109 and 212 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (a), 21 L & 21 J Qtal Am, Joint Intent, Advertising, Asylum Criminals, Terror Action Defining the evidence of the FIR, although the case was filed immediately, but did not mention the name of any attacker responsible for the incident, the verdict / injunction affected the defendant's additional The court did not cite the confession, but at one point of the verdict the trial court used the words confused. Extra judicial confession and confession A confession of a prosecution witness, who was not among the accused, could not be called because the extra-judicial confession referred to the blast at the scene of the prosecution, but the investigating officer neglected to investigate. Was In the investigation to send the explosive device component to the expert, such conduct presented a very important part of the prosecution's evidence, the trial did not prove to be co-operative. The URT did not discuss the evidence of any prosecution witness in connection with the crime of the port, passing the statement of one of the suspects listed under section 21 (h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 , Which was issued by the prosecution. Section 16969, one of the accused under CRPC, while the accused and the accused person was very similar to the accused, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence in the record, linking the accused to the prosecution. No witnesses have identified the role of the accused. In the commission of the incident, the accused were acquitted and released, under conditions
