Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus STATE

Section 2302 (b) / 34 34 Definition of Evidence The motive for this incident was not admissible by the prosecution. After the FIR was filed, the police rushed the injured to the hospital three days late, not through eyewitness testimony, eyewitnesses made unambiguous improvements to bring their evidence into line with other evidence, Eyewitnesses did not see the incident and could not comment. To accept the truth of the gospel simply because their testimony had no deep rivalry with the accused, it was to be believed that the ocular evidence was not confirmed and not credible by any other means. The trial court denied the eyewitness testimony, alleging that he was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD AKBAR v. Haji SHER MUHAMMAD 2010 YLR 406
• KHURRAM SHAHZAD v. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (COLLEGES), SIALKOT 2010 PLC(CS) 406
• AZHAR KHAN LODHI v. RETURNING OFFICER, PP 141, LAHORE 2010 MLD 408
• Rao DIL JAN KHAN v. Dr. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS 2010 PLD 413
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE v. Mst. HANEEFAN BIBI 2010 CLC 417
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM KAMBOH v. State 2010 PCrLJ 419
• ABDUL SATTAR v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER 2010 PLD 419
• Ch. ABDUL QADEER v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through the Secretary Cooperative 2010 MLD 421

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

immigration advocates contact from Qazi Ahmed lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes