Find a Lawyer

UMAIR versus STATE

Section 497 Explanation Code (XLV of 1860), section 302/324/394/34 bail, the complainant's grant was not an eyewitness to the incident and did not state how he knew the facts of this case. Is. The accused's FIR was filed after a delay of 7/8 hours in which the two eyewitnesses did not show the presence of women, saying the eyewitnesses were mother and daughter and contradicted each other on material points. And their behavior was extremely dubious. In his statements under Section 164, the PC eye witnesses did not say anything against the accused; another eyewitness, who claimed that he had beaten and injured the accused, was the accused in court. Failed to identify. First, the suspect was extremely suspicious and needed further investigation in his case;

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• HUSSAIN BAKHSH v. State 2009 YLR 1033
• MASTER TILES AND CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD. through Executive for International Business v. FEDERATON OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, Islamabad 2009 CLC 1036
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SUKKUR 2009 YLR 1036
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF v. CHAIRMAN, KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION 2009 YLR 1038
• HASSAN AL-ADAWI v. HAMA INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. 2009 CLD 1043
• SAEED AHMED v. State 2009 MLD 1047
• PEHLAWAN alias SHAMAS alias SHAMASUDDIN v. State 2009 YLR 1048
• FIDA HUSSAIN alias MIR JATT v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1048

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

property advocate from Kallat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes