Find a Lawyer

NADIR SHAH versus STATE

Section 302/149 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), evidence of section 7 references The final discovery of fact related to the delay in the FIR was established primarily on the account of the witnesses of the five witnesses, the prosecution's The four witnesses were also clearly involved with the accused trial court. Because the High Court found the testimony of prosecutors to be convincing evidence which could not be dispersed by defense through cross-examination, which fully supported the version of the prosecution by the accused that in the FIR's entry There was a clear delay which was delayed by a few hours. The FIR was fully stated as the victims of the crime were taken to the hospital first and then the FIR was lodged after which the entire evidence was thoroughly reviewed by the High Court. And another co-accused was also convicted earlier and such punishment was not only maintained by the High Court but along with the Supreme Court, the punishment and punishment for the accused was not optional and the Supreme Court is appealing. It was sought not to interfere with the court's leave

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• JAMAT-E-ISLAMI through AMIR v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2009 PLD 549
• ZAHID HUSSAIN v. SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE 2009 PLC(CS) 555
• SHAHID alias KALOO v. State 2009 SCMR 558
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ v. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE 2009 SCMR 562
• FARHAT ABBAS v. I.-G. 2009 PLC(CS) 568
• BADAR MUNIR v. State 2009 SCMR 569
• KATHIAWAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. MACCA MASJID TRUST 2009 SCMR 574
• Dr. Syed SHARAF ALI SHAH v. PROVINCE OF SINDH 2009 PLC(CS) 574

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

immigration advocate from Khair Pur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes