Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus STATE

Article 302 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185 (3) If the power of doubt is the effect of a defendant's innocence, if there is one of the accused person, at different stages of the trial by the complainant, during the course of the trial His conscience appears. Responding badly to the truth of the complaining party and also reacting against the accuracy of the allegations leveled against the co-accused, it was unnecessary to retrieve the crime weapon from the possession of the accused during the investigation. It is in the interest of justice to re-publicize the evidence against the accused. Individuals were granted leave to appeal

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• MUHAMMAD AZAM v. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL 2011 SCMR 1871
• TARIQ MEHMOOD v. State 2011 SCMR 1880
• TABASSUM SHAHZAD v. I.S.I. 2011 SCMR 1886
• MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR v. State 2011 SCMR 1893
• PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY, PUNJAB PROVINCIAL BRANCH v. ZIA ULLAH KHAN NIAZI 2011 SCMR 1901
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD v. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS 2011 SCMR 1906
• Syed TAHIR ABBAS SHAH v. OGDCL through M.D. Head Office, Islamabad 2011 SCMR 1912
• ASIF RAZA MIR v. MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN 2011 SCMR 1917

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

power of attorney advocate Sihala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes