Find a Lawyer

NADEEM AHMED versus STATE

Sections 230 b (b) and 2 30 Q (c) Definition of AMD evidence The prosecutor's witnesses did not say a word in relation to the accusation that he had presented the prosecution's witnesses to the subpoena but witnessed the incident. But were not regular witnesses. The complainant only corroborated his evidence as the star's witness, and his evidence indicated that he did not see the suspect at the scene of the incident but was told by the police station complainant. His statement was recorded in the hospital under section 154, CCPC but he did not go to the police station for a moment for any particular purpose. The FIR was lodged and the accused did not see the incident with his own eyes. The High Court changed the sentence of the accused from section 302 (b) PPC to section 302 (c), PPC and the age of fourteen. Appeal was allowed according to the reduction of the year

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• KHAN MUHAMMAD v. State 2013 YLR 2680
• Dr. SHAHID HUSSAIN KHAN v. MAQSOOD AHMED 2013 YLR 2705
• YASMIN GUL KHANANI v. TARIQ MEHMOOD 2013 YLR 2716
• MUHAMMAD HATEEM v. State 2013 YLR 2734
• ABDUR REHMAN v. WAQAR AHMED 2013 YLR 2764
• Mst. SAEEDA v. S.S.P., LARKANA 2013 YLR 2814
• ABDUL RAUF v. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (Female) 2013 YLR 2823
• SHAMIM AHMED v. MUHAMMAD FAREED 2013 YLR 2836

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

list of advocates from Ahmadpur East lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes