Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus STATE

In section 2 (2 (b) and 324 Qatil), the complainant tried to explain the evidence accurately explained the delay of about five to five hours in filing the FIRFR, the full details of the incident, the names of the accused. , The methods of the incident, the weapons were present, the names of the witnesses of the crime were proved against the accused. There was no reasonable basis for rejecting the witnesses' testimony that the three witnesses were guilty of the incident. They were witnesses and their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence which confirmed the vacancy of the whole crime, according to the ocular testimony. Further evidence was corroborated that it was alleged that there was no relaxation in his sentence and that the death sentence was upheld when he was found guilty.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• ZAHID MASOOD v. MUHAMMAD IJAZ 2012 YLR 1122
• Maj. (Retd.) ANJUM SHAFIQUE v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1124
• Hafiz MUHAMMAD ALEEM v. LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General, LDA 2012 CLD 1128
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA v. KHURSHID AKHTAR 2012 YLR 1129
• Sheikh NIAZ ANJUM v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD 2012 CLD 1133
• ALI KULI AMIN-UD-DIN v. MUHAMMAD ZAFAR 2012 PCrLJ 1136
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL v. SUI NORTHERN GASS PIPE LINES LTD. 2012 YLR 1136
• MUHAMMAD AZAM MALIK v. PAKISTAN ELECTION COMMISSION EMPLOYEES\' COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, LIMITED, LAHORE 2012 CLC 1138

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

online advocate from Chitral lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes