Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus SAEED AHMED

Clauses 2b (b) and Q 34 The accused was convicted under Section 2 (b) PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment if the court found the accused guilty of recovery of evidence and motions, but the High Court The accused was acquitted but no arrest memo was produced on the record nor was it prepared nor was there any person who acted as witness to the arrest of the accused. Day after day, after which the weapon of arms was recovered in the presence of the complainant's close relatives, every evidence was examined to testify as a witness. The defendant was rightfully denied the evidence of such prosecution, it is alleged that the accused is alleged to have committed illicit relations with the accused's home without disclosing any evidence. 'S female relative was not credible because of her demeanor, confusion. Court appeal dismissed

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• INDEPENDENT MUSIC GROUP SMC (PVT.) LTD v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLD 805
• VICTOR ELECTRONICS APPLIANCES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. HABIB BANK LIMITED 2011 SCMR 806
• AKHTAR ALI v. DIRECTOR, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FGET DTA, RAWALPINDI 2011 PLC(CS) 808
• MUHAMMAD MISKEEN v. NOOR MUHAMMAD 2011 SCMR 808
• AL-JEHAD TRUST v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLD 811
• GOHAR REHMAN v. MUHAMMAD TAHIR 2011 SCMR 815
• Malik TAJ MUHAMMAD v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLC(CS) 817
• SUO MOTU CASE NO. 24 OF 2010 2011 SCMR 817

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

famous high court advocate from Ranipur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes