Find a Lawyer

MAZAR versus STATE

Section 9 (c) Definition of Evidence The statements of the complainant and the recovery counsel, who were both police officers, contradicted each other on some material points and said that the statements of the testimony of the other prosecution were not supported or corroborated. The hashish was secured. Not available in court The case property was sent to the chemical analyst after more than two months of receipt so that no evidence was presented about the delay in sending the chemical analysis of the case and the contradictions in the evidence and the case There was a delay in sending the property. Further suspicions in the prosecution case were defended and corroborated by the defendants, which contained authentic copies of statements from investigating witnesses whose case was extremely suspicious in the investigation. The accused was entitled to the benefit of such doubt, which accordingly gave the accused the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted of the charge.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI v. ALLWIN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI 2009 PTD 1314
• MUHAMMAD AZIM v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1314
• Syed SAMI ULLAH AL QUADRI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior 2009 CLC 1314
• ROYAL GROUP through Authorized Attorney v. ASIM MATCH (PVT.) LTD. 2009 CLD 1321
• AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER, SINDH EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION 2009 CLD 1329
• BAHAR v. S.I.O. INVESTIGATION TEAM, POLICE-STATION, DISTRICT GHOTKI 2009 PCrLJ 1329
• Master HAMMAD v. SALIM MIRZA 2009 MLD 1330
• EIDAN v. State 2009 YLR 1330

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

advocates from Daharki lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes