Find a Lawyer

DILBER KHAN versus STATE

Section 2 30b (b) Definition of Nature The witnesses of the testimony described the incident in a straightforward manner and could not be denied simply because of their relationship with the victim, when they had no prejudice against the accused or There were reports of non-harassment. The forensic science laboratory will not weaken the prosecution's case because no crime was vacated from the scene of the incident as the complainant could not substitute the original culprit with another person for being the real brother of the victim. That the evidence of his conviction was substantiated by substantial and credible evidence. As a result of the murder of the accused, the accused was sentenced and as a result, the accused was only 18 years of age and when his case was presented in the FIR, his motivation was few months. Conditions

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• ABDUL RAHEEM KHAN v. MANAGING DIRECTOR PEPCO, WAPDA HOUSE LAHORE 2011 PLC(CS) 1551
• MUHAMMAD TAHIR v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-II, BAHAWALNAGAR 2011 CLC 1552
• BAHAR HUSSAIN alias BAHAR KHAN v. State 2011 MLD 1553
• SAMINA KANWAL v. DIRECTOR PUNJAB FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD 2011 PLC(CS) 1553
• Hafiz MUHAMMAD JAFFAR v. MUHAMMAD AMEER 2011 CLC 1556
• RAB NAWAZ v. State 2011 MLD 1558
• SOHAIL NASIR v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLC(CS) 1558
• MASHHOOD-UL-HAQ v. State 2011 YLR 1558

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

jobs for advocates from Kandhkot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes