Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SALEEM versus STATE

Section 2 (2 (b) Qatil Ahmed gave evidence of the incident at midnight and there was no source of light at that time so prosecutors' witnesses improved their statements to overcome the absence of light). The FIR did not disclose the presence of eyewitnesses at the time of the FIR incident. The ocular testimony contradicted the medical evidence, making any invalid, impossible and untrue statement. Depending on the circumstances is not appropriate, in this case, would lead to a very dangerous end. The evidence did not come under the principle of acceptance of the evidence and could not be relied upon without any confrontation, which gave the accused the benefit of the doubt in this case and was acquitted in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• HASNAT AHMAD KHAN v. INSTITUTION OFFICER 2010 SCMR 354
• Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF v. Mrs. AASIA GONDAL 2010 PLC(CS) 357
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.10 OF 2005, decided 2010 SCMR 361
• Dr. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AFRIDI v. C.D.A., ISLAMABAD through Chairman 2010 PLC(CS) 367
• Dr. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AFRIDI v. C.D.A., ISLAMABAD through Chairman 2010 SCMR 378
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE v. State 2010 SCMR 385
• ZAFAR IQBAL v. State 2010 SCMR 401
• CHAIRMAN DR. A.Q. KHAN v. Malik MUHAMMAD HAMID ULLAH KHAN 2010 PLC(CS) 402

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Makran lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes