Find a Lawyer

SAFA versus STATE

Article 497 of the Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), Order of Section 302/34 Gilgit-Baltistan (Sovereign and Self-Government), Article 60 (13) Qatil Ahmed guaranteed, denied the joint intention that Section 34, P.O. The PC will not draw. The accused had no common motive for culpability of the crime and even if the charge against them was proved by the prosecution, there was no possibility of their final conviction under Section 302 PPC. In the event that the question of joint intent was not determined at the time of trial in light of the evidence and could not be decided even at the bail-out stage, the leave to appeal was denied.

Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010

• ALL GILGIT BALTISTAN WORKERS through Representative v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Kashmir Affairs & Northern Areas Division, Islamabad 2010 GBLR 1
• KARAKORAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor, Gilgit v. FIDA HUSSAIN 2010 GBLR 27
• SECRETARY FOR KASHMIR AND NORTHERN AREAS AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD v. KAMRAN KHAN 2010 GBLR 32
• SHAB RUNG v. State 2010 GBLR 33
• SUO MOTU CASE RCC CHINA BRIDGE 2010 GBLR 36
• SHAHEEN SHAH v. MUHAMMAD HASSAN 2010 GBLR 46
• SUO MOTU CASE NO. 14 OF 2009 2010 GBLR 50
• State v. ZAHOOQ 2010 GBLR 54

All Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit judgments of 2010 →

property advocate from Gaggo Mandi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes