Find a Lawyer

FAZL-E-MAULA versus STATE

Section 9 Evidence Definition There was no credible evidence of any kind showing a cohort of co-accused with the recovered marijuana The prosecution was bound to prove by stringent evidence that the accused was the driver and the co-accused was secretly a driver. The bus was under discussion about which square was allegedly recovered, and the accused were convicted on the basis of speculation and speculation, not on the basis of solid evidence. The mob did not make a confessional statement on the bus, the conviction of the charges could not be proved guilty, both the conviction or sentence of the accused were separated and they were acquitted and charged with the charge. Had to be released with her

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009

• ASIM KHAN v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1344
• QASIM v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1356
• Mst. ROZINA REHMAN v. BABAR KHAN, SUB-INSPECTOR, INVESTIGATION, HARIPUR 2009 YLR 1362
• YOUSAF v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1371
• MUNAWAR HUSSAIN v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1381
• MUMTAZ KHAN v. AMIR JAN 2009 CLC 1388
• Major General (Retd.) FAZLE GHAFOOR v. TOTAL PARCO PAKISTAN LTD. 2009 MLD 1396
• ASHIQ v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1396

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2009 →

divorce advocates from Chunian lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes