Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RIAZ versus STATE

Section 2 302 (b) Validation of evidence The correction made by the eyewitnesses, including the complainant, at the time of the hearing was important and cannot be ignored by the witnesses at the time and place of the incident. Presence was not established Medical evidence was not confirmed. The ocular testimony, but also in many key aspects, was so shocking that the dead woman was killed much earlier than the time mentioned in the complaint, the ocular account was filled with numerous contradictions and contradictions, The admission value of the testimony was badly damaged. The Chashma-Dewaid witness trial court had passed an unconstitutional order regarding speculations and limitations and was kept on the same side under which the accused was acquitted.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013

• SHAKRAN BIBI v. State 2013 YLR 452
• Mst. SAEEDA v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB 2013 CLC 454
• ALLIED BANK LTD, FAISALABAD v. KHALID MEHMOOD 2013 PLD 454
• MARYAM BALIGHI v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary 2013 MLD 455
• GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB v. Raja MUHAMMAD JAVED 2013 PLC(CS) 459
• COLLECTOR, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, MULTAN v. TREND INTERNATIONAL 2013 PTD 463
• GAKHAR HUSSAIN v. Mst. SURAYYA BEGUM 2013 PLD 464
• NIB BANK LTD. v. PRESIDING OFFICER, DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT, AT SIALKOT 2013 PLD 468

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2013 →

law websites from Ghuzdar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes