Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF versus STATE

The trial court, in its judgment, found that the counter-evidence presented by the prosecution had shown the truth of untrustworthiness and that it was the complaining party. Was the one who attacked the accused. The High Court erroneously refused to consider the aspect of the case that required deep reading of the evidence on the record for which there was no conviction, as recorded and concluded by a third-party trial court. Question was asked while suspended. The trial of the accused requires serious consideration before the trial court approved by the High Court before the Supreme Court suspects that the accused is guilty of the appeal. And she was released on bail.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• ZAHID PERVAIZ v. State 2012 SCMR 56
• AHMED JAN v. NASRULLAH 2012 SCMR 59
• TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI v. SAQIB SAMDANI 2012 SCMR 64
• Major MUHAMMAD KHALID KARIM v. Mst. SAADIA YAQUB 2012 PLD 66
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ v. State 2012 SCMR 70
• Mst. FATIMA BIBI v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer Revenue, Gujrat 2012 SCMR 72
• Mst. SABEEHA v. IBRAR 2012 SCMR 74
• ABDUL MAJEED KHAN v. TAWSEEN ABDUL HALEEM 2012 PLD 80

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocates contact from Lahore lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes