Find a Lawyer

GHULAM QADIR versus STATE

On the appreciation record of Section 302/34 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 QTL AMD and evidence of terrorism, it has been proved that the accused persons were responsible for the murder of the deceased on refusing to pay Bhuta a fine. Shared intentions were shared with the co-accused and it was proven that under the pre-planned scheme, criminal murder could be committed and the motives of the accused persons can be estimated. The record of his actions and conduct did not indicate that the accused persons had set themselves apart during the commission of the crime. The source is the law of corrupt liability that stands together. The accused should be charged with vicious co-accused who committed murder of the deceased prosecution, with the devil responsible for sharing common intentions. His allegations against him proved beyond any doubt to be the result of a joint intention with the accomplices. Li appealed and the whispers were responsible for committing murder victim had been deleted.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014

• INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AND PRACTICES, QUETTA v. GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, SECRETARY LAND UTILIZATION/SENIOR MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, QUETTA 2014 CLC 1211
• ABDUL HALEEM v. State 2014 PCrLJ 1218
• REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA v. MAZAR KHAN 2014 PLC(CS) 1275
• MUHAMMAD ESSA v. DISTRICT JUDGE, PISHIN 2014 CLC 1288
• HAIDER ALI KHAN JAMALI v. RETURNING OFFICER/ADC JAFFARABAD 2014 CLC 1381
• YAR MUHAMMAD v. PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BALOCHISTAN 2014 CLC 1433
• Syed PERVEZ MUSHARRAF v. State 2014 PCrLJ 1434
• AMJAD ALI v. State 2014 YLR 1436

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2014 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Tharo Shah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes