Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR versus STATE

Section 2? (B) / App 34 Definition of Evidence Reasonable promptness in filing an FIR excluded the possibility of consideration or tuition from witnesses The eyewitnesses living in the same village knew the accused and at their respective times The presence was natural and good, explaining that two minor witnesses were hurt in the incident, the contradiction caused by the minor nature of the defense did not have any adverse effect on the authenticity of the prosecution's evidence, including the victim. The witness's relationship was not fit to exclude their evidence, especially when he was found. Reliable and credible witnesses had no strong reason for making false accusations of the accused. Medical evidence supported the account of the details of the incident, the prosecution was proven by the accused and the accused Was unable to establish his application by any hard evidence. The suspects were kept in stable condition

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• SARFRAZ v. State 2009 YLR 279
• Mian MUHAMMAD LATEEF v. Mst. NASIMA WARSI 2009 CLC 279
• SUNNY TRADERS through Proprietor v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division (FBR), Islamabad 2009 PTD 281
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE v. Mst. SHAFIQUE FATIMA 2009 MLD 282
• NADEEM-UD-DIN MALIK v. FAROOQ BUTT 2009 MLD 286
• FESCO (WAPDA) v. ARSHAD MAHMOOD MIR 2009 PLC 288
• AMJAD IQBAL v. Haji SABIR HUSSAIN 2009 CLC 289
• MASOOD AKHTAR v. WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Labour 2009 PLC 290

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

solicitors from Shadiwal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes