Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SALEEM versus STATE

Definition of Section 2302 (b) Evidence The Benefit of Doubt The story given in the FIR was quite different from the statement in the private complaint that eye witnesses have deliberately improved their earlier statements in the prosecution's case. Such evidence could not be relied upon; the five accused were acquitted by the trial court on the basis of the same evidence, which was not proved by any independent evidence to maintain the conviction of the accused, medical evidence in nature only. Could not be used as a confirmation. The piece of evidence did not have any recovery effect from the accused. The motive for the incident was not proven.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• BHUTTA v. State 2010 YLR 2108
• TANVIR ELAHI v. State 2010 YLR 2110
• MUHAMMAD SAEED v. DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI 2010 YLR 2112
• SAMI SALEEM BHATTI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad 2010 YLR 2114
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL v. State 2010 YLR 2127
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ v. State 2010 YLR 2132
• RASHED ALI v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN 2010 YLR 2145
• MUHAMMAD ARIF v. State 2010 YLR 2149

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

property advocate from Musakhel lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes