Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL versus STATE

Sections 302 (b) and 324 of the murder and evidence of the attempted confession were filed within one and a half hours after the FIR was filed, and the injured witnesses were natural witnesses to the incident. The incident, which was unambiguously exonerated against the accused, was collected from the courtyard and from the room, the ocular testimony was confirmed through a forensic science laboratory report, post-mortem and medical reports, the suspect said. The appeal was dismissed, beyond doubt to some extent. Under the circumstances

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. NAZAR HUSSAIN 2010 SCMR 1559
• Mst. ROQIAZA AKBAR v. SECRETARY, EDUCATION (S&L), N.-W.F.P. 2010 SCMR 1564
• HASHMI CAN COMPANY LTD v. LIAQUAT MUHAMMAD 2010 SCMR 1567
• BOLAN MINING ENTERPRISES v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EOBI 2010 SCMR 1573
• ITTEHAD CHEMICALS LIMITED v. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (SOUTH) 2010 SCMR 1582
• FAZAL AHMED v. ARIF ANWAR SAEED 2010 SCMR 1584
• NAEEM TARIQ SANGHERA v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE 2010 SCMR 1587
• ALEEQ SHAH v. State 2010 SCMR 1590

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

divorce advocates from Khanewal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes