Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

GHULAM SABIR versus STATE


Criminal Code (CR PC) Section 497 Criminal Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302 No accused was named in the FIR but additional court admissions and bloodshed in the investigative evidence submitted against the applicant. Included the recovery of stained weapons. Applicant Investigation Officer's Crime and Blood Stained Clothing, which states that the weapon of crime and the applicant's clothing have been chosen to stain. Jail refused to examine the evidence through the trial court

1987 P Cr. L J 1829

[Lahore]

Before Riaz Ahmad, J

GHULAM SABIR‑‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 767/13 of 1987, decided on 8th March, 1987.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑None of the accused was named in F.I.R. as culprit but in course of investigation evidence collected against petitioner consisted of extra‑judicial confession and recovery of blood‑stained weapon of offence and blood‑stained clothes of petitioner‑‑ Investigating Officer stating that weapon of offence and clothes of petitioner were opined to be stained with human blood‑‑Petitioner submitting affidavit of complainant exonerating petitioner‑ Crime being unwitnessed, complainant, held, could not exonerate petitioner as that would all depend upon appraisal of evidence by Trial Court‑‑Bail refused.

Yusuf Ali Khan for Petitioner.

Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State.

Mirza Bashir Ahmad for the Complainant.

ORDER

No doubt, that in the F.I.R. none is named as culprit, but in course of investigation the evidence collected against the petitioner consists of extra judicial confession and the recovery of blood‑stained weapon of offence and blood‑stained clothes of the petitioner. It is stated by the Investigating Officer that the weapon of offence and the clothes of the petitioner were opined to be stained with human blood.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the affidavit of the complainant exonerating the petitioner. Unfortunately the complainant cannot exonerate the petitioner because it is an un witnessed crime. It will all depend upon the appraisal of evidence by the trial Court. Accordingly, this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad is directed to submit a report to this Court as to when the trial is likely to commence. The report should reach this Court within one week.

M.B.A./ G‑35/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
divorce advocates from Khuiratta lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.