Find a Lawyer

RASOOL BUX versus STATE

Section 9 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) petitioner's counsel took the stand of the trial court as well as the High Court that both said that the courts considered the serious and serious weaknesses and contradictions in the evidence. Completely ignored. Witnesses; Non-examination of important witnesses. Contradictory evidence relating to the arrest of the applicant filed by the prosecution witness in his statement under section 161, CRPC and in his evidence in court. The weight of the two packets containing the fours was contradictory and the argument that the trial court did not observe the prosecution's testimony to the sanctity and dignity of the prosecution during the proceedings when it pointed and responded to another prosecution witness. Recommendation Marks that were noted by the trial court in the verdict. It was submitted that such conduct of the prosecution witnesses had badly demonstrated his credibility and was sufficient to refute his testimony for the purpose for which the legal detainees presented by the lawyer It was considered that fresh examination and examination of the evidence was done by the Supreme Court. In court situations \ r \ n

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• THE STATE through Directorate-General of Inspection and Internal Audit (Customs and Excise), Karachi v. ZAFAR ALI KHAN 2009 SCMR 323
• NOOR MUHAMMAD v. State 2009 SCMR 324
• MUHAMMAD AZAM v. MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH 2009 SCMR 326
• CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN v. Miss NASREEN PERVEZ 2009 SCMR 329
• HABIB-UL-HAQUE alias AJAR v. UMER GUL 2009 SCMR 335
• MUHAMMAD HALEEM v. GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION) PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARTER, LAHORE 2009 SCMR 339
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. FATIMA SHARIF TEXTILE, KASUR 2009 SCMR 344
• MUHAMMAD MURAD v. State 2009 SCMR 348

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

law firms from Khangarh lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes