Find a Lawyer

UMAR HAYAT versus STATE

No one was named an accused in the FIR during the investigation of Section 2 302 (b) evidence, when the accused was found involved in the commission of the crime, a proper identification parade should be held during the investigation, when the non There is evidence of this in the presence. Eyewitnesses were not free of any doubt Eyewitnesses did not adequately explain their presence on the occasion, the witnesses made their testimony unreliable even during the inquiry, the identity of the accused was suspicious and no one was there. The crime was not empty. At the scene of the incident, the recovery of the pistol from the accused did not result in the accused being acquitted

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• MUMTAZ ALI v. State 2011 SCMR 70
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.10 of 2010 2011 SCMR 73
• MUHAMMAD AMIN v. State 2011 SCMR 79
• MUDDASAR QAYYUM NAHRA v. Ch. BILAL IJAZ 2011 SCMR 80
• Capt. (Retd.) KHALID ZAMAN v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division 2011 SCMR 99
• MUHAMMAD MUBEEN-US-SALAM v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence 2011 PLC(CS) 103
• Sardar ASMATULLAH KHAN v. Moulvi MUHAMMAD SARWAR 2011 SCMR 107
• MEHR ALI SHAH v. State 2011 SCMR 116

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

best law firms from Qalandarabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes