Find a Lawyer

ANWAR SAEED versus STATE

Section 392 Definition of Robbery Evidence Defined Delay in Reporting Incident Defined No Recovery From Accident No Recovery From Required Prosecutor's Witnesses Unchecked Impact The accused and co-accused were charged He has returned his cellphone and cash trial court complainant and has convicted and sentenced the culprit. Under section 392, the accuracy of the PPC was not reported to the police for a two-hour delay in reporting the incident. The complainant did not specifically state in his inspection that the accused was the person who provided him with his cash. And mobile phones were looted but only told that the complainant had not been sent to a Medco legal officer to investigate his injury nor to prove that the suspect had hit his head. There is no record that he suffered a head injury from his arrest and recovery from the accused. A pistol but no cash or mobile was recovered from it. Prosecutors fail to investigate the prosecution's essential witness who testified to the complainant's version was given the benefit of the doubt, the appeal was allowed, the accused was convicted and sentenced and he was acquitted of the charge. ?

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. NAZEER AHMED 2013 PTD 649
• SAMAD HABIB v. Mst. NOOR JAHAN 2013 MLD 655
• LANDIRENZO PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad 2013 PTD 658
• MUHAMMAD AQIL v. Mst. SHABBAN BIBI 2013 CLC 659
• MEER MUHAMMAD v. State 2013 PCrLJ 672
• ASKARI BANK LIMITED v. SHAHI TEXTILES 2013 CLD 672
• Dr. ABDUL AZIZ v. IIND C & FJ/JM SOUTH 2013 YLR 676
• EVERGREEN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, HINGORJA v. SHAH ABDUL LATIF UNIVERSITY, KHAIRPUR 2013 MLD 681

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

best law firms from Chowk Munda lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes