Find a Lawyer

GULRAIZ AKHTAR versus STATE

Knowledge about the release of the accused's conspiracy to kill the accused by examining the evidence of section 302 (b) / 109, although obtained by prosecution witnesses 47 days prior to the incident, is timely The complainant did not reach the party. The statement made by the prosecution in this case was not satisfactory after the alleged conspiracy was not considered but it could not be believed that the conspiracy with the open window at night on the side of the road in the dormer As such, it gives both the witnesses a chance to not only listen to the conversation but also to look at them and to identify the participants in the electric light without identifying and identifying them. Heavily joined the anti-aging force and was acquitted on a conspiracy request. Conditions

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• Syed MASOOD ALAM RIZVI v. Dr. MUHAMMAD SAEED 2009 SCMR 477
• EJAZ NASEEM v. FAREEHA AHMAD 2009 SCMR 484
• Dr. MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ MUFTI v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary 2009 PLC(CS) 486
• KHADIM HUSSAIN v. GHULAM EISSA 2009 SCMR 488
• ANWAR AHMED v. Mst. NAFEESA BANO 2009 PLD 493
• SHAFI MUHAMMAD SAND v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 2009 PLC(CS) 495
• JAN MUHAMMAD SHAH v. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, LAHORE 2009 PLD 501
• IFTIKHAR AHMED KHAN v. ASGHAR KHAN 2009 SCMR 502

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

famous supreme court advocate from Kotli lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes