Find a Lawyer

JAVED IQBAL versus STATE

For abduction of evidence for abduction of evidence for Section 5 365 ransom, fine for the accused, then no recovery from recovery accused and sentenced the accused to 14 years imprisonment under trial. There was no recovery effect. The justification raised by the accused on his behalf or on his indictment was of no importance as it was not a role but an abduction ransom which was intended when all the accused were ransomed near the litter box at the railway station. Used to raise He was found guilty in the company of the accused enough to be linked to the crime of abduction even when the accused was abducted on a motorcycle when the reasoning was correct as the accused were tried by the High Court and the trial court. Did not guarantee interference. The conviction was proved, the accused should have been executed but the deceased's legal heirs had agreed with C. O the accused and the agreement was accepted, therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the confiscation of all movable and immovable property. Appeal was dropped while increasing the sentence to 14 years in prison.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• MUHAMMAD YASIN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad 2012 PLD 132
• E.D.O. (EDU.) BAHAWALNAGAR v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM 2012 SCMR 133
• GUL MUHAMMAD v. M.C.B. BANK LIMITED 2012 SCMR 136
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. NAZAR KHAN 2012 SCMR 138
• HAMID HUSSAIN v. SECRETARY HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 2012 SCMR 145
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM (DECEASED) v. Molvi MUHAMMAD ISHAQ (DECEASED) 2012 SCMR 147
• MASOOD AHMED BHATTI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, M/O. Information Technology and Telecommunication 2012 SCMR 152
• DIRECTOR-GENERAL, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD v. MUHAMMAD JAVED 2012 SCMR 165

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

lawer from fb area from Abdul Hakim lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes