Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TUFAIL versus STATE

Section 2 (b) b Define testimony of Qatil-Umid evidence The benefit of the suspect was not only extremely unlikely, but it also led to suspicion that the testimony of the eyewitnesses did not encourage credibility. According to the prosecution, the prosecution was unsuccessful.The criminal science was sent to the Franzic Science Laboratory after the recovery of the gun, the laboratory report was suspicious given the benefit of every suspect in this case. Was to go but it was not a matter of grace as the accused was acquitted in the matter of truth

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD ASIF v. State 2010 YLR 1381
• MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ v. State 2010 MLD 1382
• RIASAT ALI v. State 2010 YLR 1384
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL v. AZMAT NAVEED 2010 MLD 1388
• FAROOQ EJAZ v. DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER KHANEWAL 2010 YLR 1394
• PAK STAR INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor v. COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, LAHORE 2010 PTD 1394
• Mst. PERVEEN v. LIAQAT HAYAT 2010 CLC 1395
• TASSAWAR RASHEED v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAKWAL 2010 MLD 1395

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

advocates from Nankana Sahib lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes