Find a Lawyer

NOOR MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Section 2 302 (b) Qatil Ahmed praised the evidence, allegedly being the only eyewitness to mention the names of the deceased minors who were his nephews; such behavior led to a suspicious complaint about his presence. Who admitted in cross-examination that he had just been fired. One of the defendants who defied his version in the FIR was accused of having armed with Kalashnikovs in the FIR, but the complainant stated in his testimony that an accused was armed with a .303 bore rifle. However, no vacant recovery of the alleged firearms was recovered. Some other firearms were also not sent to the forensic science laboratory. Was not supported in the scheme which shows that the complainant was in the alleged firing range and that Ng could not escape. Someone who suspected her presence at her place e-house but upon a general examination she admitted that she was inside the house. The alleged ambassadors also denied that the FIR without my knowledge of the other evidence could not be made the basis of the conviction statement that the defendant had been shot dead. The accused acquitted in the prosecution case \ r \ n

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014

• ANWARZEB v. MUSHTAQ AHMED 2014 CLD 1632
• FAYAZ v. State 2014 PCrLJ 1645
• MUHAMMAD TANVIR KHAN KUNDI v. ASHRAF KHAN 2014 MLD 1645
• FAREED ULLAH KHAN v. Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR 2014 CLC 1659
• SAMIN BIBI v. MUSLIM KHAN 2014 MLD 1672
• GUL ZAMAN v. SHAH NAWAZ 2014 CLC 1674
• GUL USMAN v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 2014 CLC 1681
• SHAHID ULLAH v. EID MARJAN 2014 PCrLJ 1684

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2014 →

female advocates from Khyber Agency lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes