Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TARIQ ALIAS TARA versus STATE

Sections 2 (b) / & / and 4 324/3434 Review of the evidence continued to be the motive for the incident. The complainant was fully supported and the FIR of the prosecution case was immediately presented. There was no scope for the allegations made, the suspect's identity did not leave any doubt as to the one-day incident. Ocular's testimony was consistent, a gun was recovered from an accused who matched it against a safe place, although the pistol was not recovered from the crime scene. However, he did not make his case suspicious as he was involved in the incident; medical evidence had completely confirmed the ocular account after the evidence on record was fully proven and both the accused The injured were designated FIRs with their respective characters and the weapons used by them does not make the accused less deserving of lesser punishment in their favor. Appeals were dismissed in embarrassing circumstances in the absence of

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• MUHAMMAD AZAM v. State 2009 SCMR 1232
• WAQAR HAIDER BUTT v. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT 2009 SCMR 1243
• DEWAN CEMENT LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND SALES TAX and another 2009 PTD 1247
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR v. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN 2009 SCMR 1256
• SHARIF AHMAD v. GHULAM RASOOL 2009 SCMR 1265
• PEER DIL v. DAD MUHAMMAD 2009 SCMR 1268
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB v. State 2009 SCMR 1273
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAY v. ELI LILLY PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. 2009 SCMR 1279

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

advocates from Shogram lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes