Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD BUX versus STATE

Section 392 Definition of Robbery Proof In case of any evidence, the complainant's mare and cash were robbed, the ladder mare was recovered from the accused on the basis of which he was involved in the case. 392, sentenced under PPC. The defendant's argument was that this was not a case of proof against him. Lawyer was not charged during the course of his evidence through the complaint and the trial of the case was presented to the eyewitness and the private witnesses named in the FIR, without prosecution for any reason. No evidence of any kind was available for assignment from. There was no evidence available to link the accused to the alleged crime under the allegations, it was alleged that he was acquitted of the second FIR registered against him on an alleged robbery restoration charge. The appellant was allowed, the accused was tried and convicted and he was acquitted. Compensation \ r \ n \ r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• UNITED BANK LTD. v. SYNTHETIC LEATHER/INDUSTRIES 2013 MLD 148
• TAJ MUHAMMAD BROHI v. Mst. FARIDA AHMAD MUHAMMAD AHMED SIDDIQUI 2013 CLC 154
• GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad 2013 PTD 155
• AMEER BAKHSH alias KURARO v. State 2013 YLR 156
• NAVEED v. COMMISSIONER WORKMEN COMPENSATION EAST KARACHI 2013 PLC 162
• Mst. SHABANA YASMEEN v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Member Board of (Revenue), Karachi 2013 CLC 164
• GHAZI v. State 2013 YLR 164
• ARY COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Information and Broadcasting, Islamabad 2013 PLD 168

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

immigration advocates phone number from Jhudo lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes