Find a Lawyer

QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN ALIAS KALA versus STATE

Article 2 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 2 (185 (am)) of the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of Qatil Ahmed incident and their testimony was absolutely natural and no doubt against any of the witnesses of the eyewitness against the false or false. There were no allegations. The possibility of any kind of advice or advice on the complaint filed in the immediate FIR was completely excluded, filing such ocular evidence was natural, straightforward, convincing And trustworthy, which was fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Ltd. was found guilty, the accused had the right measure, the following courts shall not present the evidence and was sentenced to death in conditions. According to the court

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• SOHAIL BUTT v. DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (NORTH.) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND MOTORWAY POLICE 2011 PLC(CS) 846
• N.-W.F.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. MUHAMMAD ARIF 2011 SCMR 848
• MARVI MEMON v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLD 854
• RAJA KHAN v. MANAGER (OPERATION) FAISALABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (WAPDA) 2011 PLC(CS) 856
• STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN v. JAVAID IQBAL 2011 CLD 860
• THE STATE through D.-G., A.N.F., Rawalpindi v. MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN 2011 SCMR 863
• PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, N.-W.F.P. v. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ 2011 PLC(CS) 865
• SIKANDAR ZAMAN v. State 2011 SCMR 870

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

law firms from Qambar Shahdatkot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes