Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MURTAZA versus STATE

Articles 2 (2 ()) / 34 & 4 324/3434 Definition of evidence in a convoy was surrounded by a jungle. The incident occurred in the dark of night. No source of light was shown at this place. As such, it cannot be dispelled that the ballistic expert was not sent to seek the opinion of the accused, was not helpful to the prosecution, medical evidence did not in any way confirm the ocular evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrators. The complainant was not named in the FIR, indicating the accused in his supplementary statement 14/15 days later. Defective weakness of the accused was acquitted

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• RAJO KHAN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 452
• FAQIR MUHAMMAD v. State 2010 YLR 457
• INDUS POLYESTER COMPANY LTD. through Official Liquidator 2010 CLD 460
• Pir ABDUL AZIZ QURESHI v. WAPDA through Chairman 2010 PLC(CS) 461
• Dr. ABDULLAH HAMID MEHMOOD v. State 2010 YLR 462
• HAMEEDULLAH v. State 2010 YLR 464
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PaCCS, KARACHI v. KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLIES CO. (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI 2010 PTD 465
• ROOTS SCHOOL NETWORK through Attorney v. BASHIR AHMED 2010 CLC 466

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

advocates from Ghazi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes