Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANEEF versus STATE

Section 2 302 (b) Qatil Ahmed appreciating the evidence, the complainant and the other two witnesses unanimously established their presence with the purpose of the incident, firing at them directly with the accused. Had witnessed the incident. The testimony of the deceased ocular was proved by medical evidence that eight empty cartridges of 12 bores were recovered from the scene and that ten live cartridges of the same caliber as well as the SBBL gun were recovered at the time of his arrest. In the above-mentioned articles, the Tire Accelerator account was further confirmed that there was no shortage of records to support the defendants with a lower sentence award and the culprits were confirmed in death ?

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• AMJAD AMEEN v. State 2010 YLR 2993
• MUJAHID ALI v. State 2010 YLR 3010
• MUHAMMAD MITHAL alias MITHJO v. State 2010 YLR 3029
• IMDAD ALI JARWAR v. State 2010 YLR 3059
• Syed SIRAJ HASSAN v. MUHAMMAD TAHIR 2010 YLR 3109
• MUSHTAQ v. State 2010 YLR 3117
• SADRUDDIN ABDULLAH GANGJI v. State 2010 YLR 3168
• SHAH NAWAZ v. State 2010 YLR 3182

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

advocates from Dudial lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes