Find a Lawyer

UMER ZEB versus STATE

Section 2 302 / at Q Definition of AMD evidence The light of the incident was a daily occurrence and an FIR was immediately registered on the accused in which the firing was played. And the two accomplices were accused of their mere presence in the brutal murder of a deadly weapon and were not charged in any way. The ocular account presented by the prosecution's witnesses was consistent, reliable and trustworthy because they fully supported each other. The medical evidence presented by the doctor was fully consistent with the account of the doctor. There was no major contradiction and contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution. The cross-examination was carried out but the allegations were hidden and for a long time the illegal licensed crime weapon 222 bore rifle was sent to the weapons specialist for analysis with the recovered blanks. There was positive inadequate as well as circumstantial evidence in connection with which Ms Reasonable Lism was concerned. The Offense Commission CEO Prosecution has alleged that the trial against the two accused was standing on various matters, the trial court acquitted him, the trial court had considered every aspect of the case and without it. A reasonable decision was made to guarantee interference. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence against the culprits

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011

• SHAHID FAROOQ v. WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2011 PLC(CS) 1034
• AMIR ULLAH SHAH v. IHSAN ULLAH 2011 YLR 1047
• ABDUL GHAFOOR v. State 2011 MLD 1048
• MUHAMMAD RAEES v. SABZ ALI 2011 CLC 1054
• NATIONAL STEEL MILLS AND RE-ROLLERS (PVT.) LTD., HATTAR v. COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR 2011 PTD 1076
• Haji SIKANDAR WALI v. Shahzada MOHIYUDDIN 2011 CLC 1078
• MEHANDIA v. JUMA 2011 MLD 1081
• JAMIL v. SHEERIN 2011 YLR 1083

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2011 →

law firms from Taxila lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes