Find a Lawyer

ANSAR ALI versus STATE

Section 302 (b) / 34 Qatl e amd evidence was not available at the time of the two incidents at the time of the presence of both witnesses. Eyewitnesses have improved their statements, which has led to at least some confidence that the Ocular witness has already denied. The two accused cannot be trusted in the trial, the present accused cannot be believed as well as the guns recovered from the accused were not used in the commission of the crime. It is unlikely that the accused would be involved in this case. The suspects were acquitted under conditions

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• (SUO MOTU CASE FOR RECOVERY OF MINOR KIDS OF MST. TAHIRA JABEEN) 2010 SCMR 1804
• UCH POWER (PVT.) LTD. v. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2010 PTD 1809
• Dr. AYESHA SABIR v. FIDA UL HAQ 2010 SCMR 1811
• ZAFAR v. UMER HAYAT 2010 SCMR 1816
• UHAMMAD SHEHZAD MALIK v. MUHAMMAD SUHAIL 2010 SCMR 1825
• AKHLAQ HUSSAIN KAYANI v. ZAFAR IQBAL KIYANI 2010 SCMR 1835
• Sayed ABBAS TAQI MEHDI v. Mst. Sayeda SABAHAT BATOOL 2010 SCMR 1840
• Dr. SHAHID MASOOD v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2010 SCMR 1849

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

law firms from Warburton lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes