Find a Lawyer

ABID ALI versus STATE

Section 302 (b) / 34 Qatl e amd evidence was appreciated at the time the incident was filed immediately the FIR eliminated the possibility of any consultation or prematurely named the accused in the FIR Had played a specific role in the incident. According to the medical evidence, on the special complaint confessed by the accused on the spot of the incident and the incident, the complaining party had requested to show aggression in the incident, which was not confirmed by presenting any evidence. Neither was he present in his position as witness under oath under Section 340 (2), CCP two witnesses were independent witnesses of the incident which recovered the suspect's dagger from human blood. That the serologist's weakness or absence of purpose was not fatal to the prosecution. In the presence of trial and certified ocular testimony, the death sentence and sentence of the perpetrators were retained

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• MUHAMMAD RIAZ alias DINGA v. State 2011 PCrLJ 615
• Mst. SAIRA SHAH NAWAZ v. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY 2011 MLD 617
• Mrs. RUBINA ANJUM v. PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Chairman 2011 PLC(CS) 620
• SHAHID SIDDIQUE v. SHARJA NATIONAL TRAVELS AND TOURIST AGENCY 2011 PLD 620
• Mst. AZRA TABASSUM v. State 2011 YLR 628
• GHULAM v. PEHILWAN 2011 CLC 629
• ABDUL RASHID ZARGAR v. ADNAN alias CHIKNA 2011 MLD 636
• ALI ASGHAR v. State 2011 PCrLJ 641

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

best law firm from Chashma lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes