Find a Lawyer

TALIB HUSSAIN versus STATE

Section 2 (b (b) / 34 34) Evidence Review The death was the cumulative effect of all the injuries sustained by the witness's witness relationship with the deceased or because of the incident he is interested in prosecuting the accused. He was not proven by the record record as an Alibi-interested witness, alleging that the land dispute between the parties had a strong purpose of committing the crime, of which An FIR was promptly filed with the role attributed to each of them. The evidence was retrieved and medical evidence was corroborated, because of the time of day, the possibility of mistakenly identifying or replacing the accused had to be decided. As was suggested by the prosecution and according to C. The conviction of the accused was upheld in these cases, except that the two accused were sentenced to life imprisonment for reducing the circumstances in their favor.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• M.B. ABBASI v. State 2009 SCMR 808
• SHAH HUSSAIN v. State 2009 PLD 809
• Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF v. State 2009 PLD 814
• Mst. GULSHAN BIBI v. State 2009 SCMR 819
• SAEED AKHTAR v. State 2009 SCMR 834
• AXLE PRODUCTS LIMITED v. ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. 2009 CLD 836
• PARKS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director v. PRIVATIZATION COMMISSIONER, through Secretary 2009 SCMR 838
• Mian MUHAMMD AMAR YOUSAF v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad 2009 SCMR 843

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

best law firms from Qasba Gujrat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes