Find a Lawyer

SAJID ALI SHAH versus STATE

Section 302 (b) Qatil Amad appreciated the evidence, the prosecution's witnesses withheld the evidence of the material witnesses, the investigating officer has improved his evidence to include the accused in the case, under Investigation Officer section 161. The witnesses did not explain the delay in the investigation. The CCP prosecution evidence was not credible and did not affect the trust. The trial court failed to examine, properly discuss the evidence and give reasons for its decision.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• MOULA BUX v. State 2010 PLD 204
• CONTROLLER (NOW DIRECTOR), KARACHI v. NADEEM ENTERPRISES through Proprietor 2010 YLR 205
• INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LTD. through Senior Manager Administration and Security v. COMMISSIONER, SINDH EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION 2010 PLC 207
• Mst. IZZAT ARA v. MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE 2010 YLR 210
• SALMAN RAZA KHAN v. State 2010 MLD 212
• Raja ABDUL HAMEED v. SHEHRI-CBE through Vice-Chairperson 2010 PLD 213
• MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL v. State 2010 YLR 214
• MUHAMMAD ASIF RANA v. ABDUL MAJEED ALI M. SABADIA 2010 CLC 214

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

best law firms from Saidu Sharif lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes