Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IMRAN versus STATE

Sections 302 (b), 170, 171, 457 and 148 of the clauses were not confessed to any of the accused for the commission of the crime. The prosecution did not examine any of the witnesses mentioned in the FIR at the trial, The inmate of the house allegedly appeared for the first time four months after the incident with no explanation to the investigating officer, and did not describe the individual's role in the test identification parade during the incident so that the accused No weapons were recovered from the impact. No one can be convicted unless convicted on the basis of credible evidence unless the accused is given the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances and they are acquitted accordingly.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• ABDUL MAJEED v. MUHAMMAD YAQOOB 2009 YLR 989
• NAZAN BIBI v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG 2009 YLR 991
• MUHAMMAD KHALIL SHAH v. PROVINCIAL STANDING MEDICAL BOARD 2009 MLD 993
• FIDA HUSSAIN v. MUHAMMAD SHAH 2009 YLR 996
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM, LUMBERDAR v. SUB-DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER, FAISALABAD 2009 CLC 1000
• MUHAMMAD SHABIR v. Raja MUHAMMAD SHARIF 2009 YLR 1001
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TOBA TAKE SINGH 2009 MLD 1002
• WAPDA v. MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH 2009 CLC 1004

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

inheritance advocates near Sambrial lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes