Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD PANAH versus STATE

Section 2302 (b) Qatil Oma appreciated the evidence Natural witnesses of the incident presented permanent ocular evidence without any material contradiction; medical evidence confirmed ocular evidence, protected from both murder sites. Four empty cartridges were found, the ballistic export report said the gun was recovered from the possession of unidentified and unlicensed evidence of the accused, only the defendant could not be left on the basis of the relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the accused. And they committed their murder. Had already been dealt with gently by the trial court and sentenced to lesser life imprisonment

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• GAMOON v. State 2011 PCrLJ 1801
• TAIMOOR v. State 2011 YLR 1805
• SADULLAH v. State 2011 MLD 1806
• PEERANO v. State 2011 YLR 1807
• THE BANK OF PUNJAB v. NINA INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2011 CLD 1812
• FAIZ MUHAMMAD v. GUL MUHAMMAD 2011 CLC 1818
• ALI HYDER v. State 2011 YLR 1819
• ABDUL FATTAH v. State 2011 YLR 1823

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

female advocates from Ubaro lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes