Find a Lawyer

MST. FARHEEN versus STATE

The trial court convicted the culprits of the arrest and smuggling evidence of Section 9 (c) drug addicts and was convicted by the police and administration witnesses in this case and the absence of unwanted witnesses. Due to availability, the evidence of police witnesses could not be relied upon. The defendant's refusal to indict the defendant was made by the fact that the complainant (the policeman) who prepared the recovery memo and the recovery witness (policeman) consistently established in his statements the material details of the prosecution's case. Granted, physical contradictions or contradictions were not brought on the record for scattering. The credibility of the evidence of the accused was arrested on the spot The prohibited report of the Franz Science Laboratory was positive; no misconduct or enmity with the police was brought to the record, such a large amount of ban by the prosecution against the accused. Could not be prosecuted, the defendant failed to prove his defense by providing evidence. Dismissed in circumstances

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013

• State v. HAMEED 2013 PLD 144
• The STATE v. NAWABZADA SHAH ZAIN BUGTI 2013 PCrLJ 147
• NASEEB GUL v. AMIR JAN 2013 PCrLJ 175
• SHAHID HAKEEM v. ALTAF HUSSAIN AGHA 2013 PCrLJ 188
• ARAB v. State 2013 PCrLJ 229
• SECRETARY COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN v. DAD BAKHSH 2013 CLC 343
• MUHAMMAD JAN v. SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2013 PLC(CS) 370
• BALOCHISTAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB), ISLAMABAD 2013 PCrLJ 405

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2013 →

law firms from Thul lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes