Find a Lawyer

ABDUL WALI versus STATE

The evidence of the Section 392 robbery was appreciated by the police on the same day and an FIR was registered against the unidentified persons. The complainant took the stand that he could identify the two assailants, he was arrested a year and a half after the incident at the complainant's suggestion. The suspect claimed that the identification parade was not held after his arrest, the legitimate suspect was arrested on the complainant's indication, so there was no need to hold the identity parade which failed to identify the accused. That failed to identify any evidence by which it had not been considered. Three witnesses of the trial court identified the accused as a guilty trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and did not commit any illegal activity or disorder.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010

• FATEH MUHAMMAD v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1082
• LIAQUAT ALI v. SABRULLAH 2010 YLR 1083
• Haji GHULAM RASOOL v. NASARULLAH 2010 CLC 1138
• KHAYAL MUHAMMAD v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1145
• GUL WALI v. WIDOW OF SHEIKH GHULAM NABI 2010 YLR 1184
• ABDUL GHAFFAR v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1204
• HASIL KHAN v. State 2010 YLR 1209
• MANZOOR AHMED v. State 2010 MLD 1217

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2010 →

advocates from Rohri lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes