Find a Lawyer

ABDUL KARIM versus STATE

Four months' unclear delay in filing an appeal against section 302 criminal code of conduct (v. 1898), section 417 (2A), showed that after the consultation, the incident was unseen, allegedly. The accused confessed to the extra-judicial confession before the interested persons. Evidence was inadmissible The chemical stain recovered from the blood stain iron rod was not sent to the chemical examiner, there was no result material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution made the case doubtful. The defendant's respondents had since received a double confession of innocence, which did not face the verdict. Appeal against the fate of the accused against any weakness was dismissed in the circumstances

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LIMITED, KARACHI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI 2009 PTD 1791
• MUHAMMAD RAUF QADRI JUNADI v. CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT KARACHI 2009 YLR 1800
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL v. Mr. VALLEY 2009 YLR 1801
• Haji MUHAMMAD AMEEN v. State 2009 YLR 1803
• SHADAB DEVELOPERS through Managing Partnership v. ABDULLAH 2009 YLR 1814
• SIKANDAR MALLAH v. State 2009 YLR 1822
• MEER HASSAN alias AMEER HASSAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Port and Shipping, Islamabad 2009 YLR 1827
• HABIB-UR-REHMAN v. CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT (K.B.C.A., WING), KARACHI through Chief Controller 2009 YLR 1834

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

family advocate from Gujrat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes