Find a Lawyer

MUGHAL KHAN versus STATE

Section 497 (2) Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 395 Law on Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 22 Robbery Guarantee committed robbery at a bank The complainant identified the accused during the identification parade. Six months after the incident and ten days after the arrest of the accused FIR, there were other persons present at the bank at the time of the incident and they had also seen the accused and the accompanying accused, but none of them was identified. The identification report requested for the remarks was that a witness was shown photographs of the accused and co-accused NS, therefore, he was required to take the identification test. The sanctity of the identity test was made suspicious by such remarks.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• LOUNG v. State 2013 YLR 203
• Mrs. FOZIA SULTANA v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Home Department 2013 PLD 203
• COCA COLA MAZDOOR UNION v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, SINDH 2013 PLC 206
• SHER BANO v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Narcotics, Islamabad 2013 PCrLJ 208
• DANISH v. Mst. FOZIA DANISH 2013 PLD 209
• KIFAYATULLAH v. SPECIAL JUDGE CUSTOMS AND TAXATION, KARACHI 2013 PTD 210
• GHULAM RASOOL v. State 2013 PLD 214
• AHMED v. REHMAT ALI 2013 PLD 217

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

best advocate from Karachi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes