Find a Lawyer

IBRAHIM JAT versus STATE

Appreciating the evidence of section 2302 (b), the presence of the accused was not suspected in the case of any clear allegation against the accused involved because the prosecution witness did not say anything about it in his statement. It was reported that the co-accused did not retrieve the deception from his identification. The proven co-accused did not participate in the commission of the crime and his mere presence was not sufficient to prove his guilt in offering a joint intention without any evidence, although the presence of the co-accused at the scene of the incident Was shown to be equipped with a hatch-chat, but neither used it nor participated in the alleged crime in any way, the appeal of the said accused was allowed, he was acquitted of the benefit of the doubt and released. went

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• CARGIL INCORPORATED v. TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN 2010 CLC 420
• Mst. NADIRA IZHAR v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Provincial Secretary Ministry of Food 2010 MLD 420
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, KARACHI v. AQEEL KARIM DHEDHI, KARACHI 2010 PTD 421
• SHAHABUDDIN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 422
• GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2010 PLC(CS) 426
• MUHAMMAD USMAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production 2010 PLC 427
• QAMARUDDIN ARAIN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamabad 2010 CLC 432
• Mst. REHANA v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION PANGRIO, DISTRICT BADIN 2010 MLD 432

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

Pakistan, top advocate family court from Kalam lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes