Find a Lawyer

TAJ versus STATE

Article 2 302 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 2 QQ () Nature re-examined the evidence. The injured witnesses were sentenced by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment which the High Court upheld, during which the injured witnesses were also injured. The doctor confirmed the facts of the injury, thus establishing the presence of such prosecution witnesses. Eyewitnesses were subject to scrutiny but their credibility was not suspected; the prosecution's witnesses were present because they were with the deceased at the time of his injury. The trial court had already sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. I was extended and was not entitled to any other relief. The High Court decision was based on reasonable definition of judges. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the trial court's findings unless it was arbitrary, fake or misleading. Was denied leave to do so

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• ALL PAKISTAN NEWSPAPERS SOCIETY v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2012 PLD 1
• IBRAHIM KAMAL v. Mst. MALOOKA BIBI 2012 SCMR 1
• Rana AAMER RAZA ASHFAQ v. Dr. MINHAJ AHMAD KHAN 2012 SCMR 6
• NIAZ AHMED v. State 2012 SCMR 41
• CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB v. SHAFIQUE AHMAD CHAUDHRY 2012 SCMR 45
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector/DOR District Chakwal v. BAZ KHAN 2012 SCMR 51
• Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR v. G.M. (P & D) WATER, WAPDA 2012 SCMR 54
• ZAHID PERVAIZ v. State 2012 SCMR 56

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocate from Bhuawana lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes