Find a Lawyer

MURAD TARIQ versus STATE

Section 2302 (b) Validating convicted evidence The contradictions in the witnesses' statements at the time of the incident negated their presence Ocular evidence against the defense evidence was highly unlikely The complainant and witnesses were present at the crime scene Medical evidence did not prove that the incident was recovered from the body of the bullet, was not examined by the forensic science laboratory, no weapon was recovered from the possession of the accused, FIR at the time of the incident. He was proven alone at the time of the post-mortem report and dead body shot by police after six days. Which was not explicitly explained as a result of a communion with the complaining party. No criminal vacancies were found by the forensic science laboratory. The prosecution of a co-accused of a pistol recovered from a car could not be prosecuted. The suspect was acquitted.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• MUHAMMAD AKRAM v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary 2011 PCrLJ 85
• ABDUL REHMAN alias GAGI v. State 2011 PLD 92
• HABIB BANK LTD. through duly Authorized Attorneys v. FAIQA TRADING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. through Director and Chief Executive Officer 2011 CLD 92
• IRFAN v. State 2011 PCrLJ 95
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR v. ABDUL RAUF 2011 MLD 96
• Dr. GHULAM RABANI KHAN v. PCSIR through Chairman, Islamabad 2011 PLC(CS) 99
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS KHAN LODHI v. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE 2011 PLD 102
• Syed AZMAT HUSSAIN v. CHAIRMAN, NAB 2011 PCrLJ 104

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

law websites from Lahore lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes