Find a Lawyer

ABDUL QAYUM versus STATE

Articles 302 (b) and 109 criminal code of conduct (v. 1898), provisions 382 b & 544 A Qtl i amd Definition of evidence proved that the single accused was charged with the specific role of a firearm and immediately f. It was not possible to file an IR, the vacant was recovered, there was no suspicion in the identity of the accused as the parties knew each other and belonged to the same village from which the accused had been evacuated. Site plan depicts Medical evidence Miscellaneous account Absconcion not unknown Trial court dismisses appellant's appraisal of evidence properly

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• HUSSAIN MUHAMMAD v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, ISLAMIA COLLEGE, PESHAWAR 2015 CLC 500
• ABDUL GHAFAR v. State 2015 PCrLJ 502
• AHMAD GUL v. State 2015 MLD 507
• AMAN UL HAQ v. State 2015 MLD 518
• Mst. SAMINA BIBI v. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN 2015 YLR 539
• SAHIBZADA v. State 2015 PCrLJ 554
• Mst. RUKHSANA v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2015 PLC(CS) 560
• SULTAN MUHAMMAD v. COLLECTOR CUSTOMS 2015 PTD 570

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

patent advocate from Tharparkar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes