Find a Lawyer

AZMAT ALI versus STATE

Section 2 302 (b) Definition of Evidence The benefit of the doubt was that witnesses modified and altered their statements during the trial, especially in the event that such intentional and dishonesty on the material points of the complainant's presence. Faith reforms had raised serious doubts. After considering and consulting the facts of the ocular witnesses, an FIR was filed; no crime was recovered due to vacancy on the spot; the pistol was recovered from the accused about the condition of the pistol. The forensic science laboratory report did not offer a prosecution case. Was unnecessary, the motive for the incident was not sufficiently established. Medical evidence could not link the accused to the commission of the crime; reasonable doubt in the mind of the court gives the suspect the benefit of doubt, not grace. Because in the matter of truth, the accused was acquitted under the circumstances

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• ANJUMAN-I-MUTASREEN KHSHATKARAN RAVI RIVER v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore 2012 CLC 1145
• GHULAM GILLANI v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1148
• MUMTAZ-UD-DIN SHEIKH v. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, ISLAMABAD 2012 PLC(CS) 1149
• SAFDAR HUSSAIN v. EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE 2012 MLD 1150
• NAZIR AHMED SHAHID v. State 2012 MLD 1154
• ABDUL HAMEED v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1157
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TAXILA 2012 CLC 1158
• GUL FAROOQ v. State 2012 MLD 1163

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

best advocate from Bunner lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes