Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SAEED versus STATE

Sections 302 (6), 324 and 337a (i) Appreciating the evidence The presence of eyewitnesses at the time of the incident was not open to any doubt and the collateral account agreed on the active participation of the accused. On the occasion the accused recovered fireworks from Moto's report. He also supported the prosecution's version. The accused's deceased sister was abducted twice by the second victim and about five to five years after her second confrontation. On the same roof, the two victims were not killed for any length of time under any kind of provocation, and the accused had committed the crime well and was punished and punished. The death was confirmed in circumstances.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD ASIM v. State 2010 PCrLJ 771
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AHMAD v. State 2010 YLR 772
• MUHAMMAD NADEEM v. State 2010 MLD 773
• ASHIQ HUSSAIN v. JUSTICE OF PEACE, ALIPUR 2010 YLR 774
• ZAHID MAHMOOD v. TAHIR AZIZ CHUGHTAI 2010 CLD 777
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ v. MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE 2010 YLR 778
• Mst. TABASSAM PERVEEN v. D.C.O. 2010 YLR 781
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM v. Mst. HALIMAN BIBI 2010 CLC 781

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

inheritance advocates near Pirpai lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes