Find a Lawyer

KHIZAR HAYAT versus STATE

Section ((e) thanks to the evidence of the abduction owed to the accused or anyone else with the intention of kidnapping or carrying the affected child, no witness was excluded. The victim's father was not one of the two defendants who repeatedly demanded a ransom on a mobile phone. The witnesses for the recovery of the affected child were charged with possession of the accused, prosecutors cannot claim. Beyond any reasonable doubt can prove his case against the accused or in the absence of proof of recovery The defendant has no legal power to plead for a witness defense, as there is no consensus on such version. Both defendants deny or deny their suspicions arising in their favor. Cannot be excluded, which cannot be proved by a prosecution beyond the shadow of a doubt. The accused were set aside and both the accused were acquitted, in which case the appeal was allowed.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• ABDUL SATTAR v. S.G.S. PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director 2011 PLC 40
• Engr. K.M. ASGHAR v. PROVINCIAL CHIEF, HBFS, KARACHI 2011 PLD 41
• SALIM BHALLO v. LEARNED COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SOUTH; KARACHI 2011 PLD 48
• SHAKIR NAWAZ CHAUDHRY v. SARFARAZ KHAN 2011 YLR 50
• MUHAMMAD QAISER v. State 2011 PCrLJ 55
• SARIR MUHAMMAD KHAN v. PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. through Chairman 2011 PLC(CS) 56
• NIAZ ALI v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICER (EDUCATION), SUKKUR 2011 PLC(CS) 61
• AMAN BAIG v. DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTIES 2011 CLC 62

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

criminal advocate from Piplan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes