Find a Lawyer

ATTA MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Section 392 Crimes against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 17 (3) robbery and harassment evidence could not be relied upon in the absence of such an explanation in their police statements. There was no explanation as to why the detention parade was held under the supervision of the DSP in the jail premises. A complaint has been filed that the accused had snatched Rs 3 lakh from his house, but he had stated in front of the court that the accused had taken Rs one lakh. The statement noted that the accused had received gold and gold. Silver bangles and Balochi silver necklace were taken away, but they were not told the facts in the FIR that the recovery was reported. Lzman was not taken from their homes and they were not called to work as police alleged he was respected as a private individual consultants of the area at the time of the alleged discovery. Failure to prove the charges against any reasonable suspect, convicted and accused without any explanation was not prosecuted The trial court acquitted the convicts against the accused.

Related judgments — Federal Shariat Court, 2011

• Mian HAMMAD MURTAZA v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad 2011 PLD 117
• Mst. ROBINA RASHID v. FARRUKH AMIN 2011 PLD 121
• SOHAIL AFZAL v. State 2011 PCrLJ 190
• HUSSAIN BAKHSH alias BILAL v. State 2011 PCrLJ 245
• MANZOOR AHMAD v. State 2011 PCrLJ 511
• MUMTAZ AHMED v. State 2011 PCrLJ 544
• AL-AMEER v. State 2011 PCrLJ 583
• AAS MUHAMMAD alias ASOO v. State 2011 PCrLJ 617

All Federal Shariat Court judgments of 2011 →

best advocate from Bisham lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes