Find a Lawyer

ASGHAR HUSSAIN versus STATE

Section 2 30at convict was not designated in FIR for definition of AMD evidence However, he cannot mention the name of the accused and his role in the alleged crime, while filing an FIR does not contain any defamatory material which can be verified. The general evidence in this regard was presented by the prosecution. The trial court failed to record any finding of joint motive or co-conspiracy with the accused, nor weapons or vacant material from the accused's possession. The recovery effect was taken, and no direct evidence or consequent material was produced. Prosecutor could not establish charges again. St. accused beyond reasonable doubt did not justify the trial court's sentence and sentence. Went to trial, while the accused was entitled to take advantage of the doubt while increasing the benefit of the doubt by the trial court. He was sentenced and acquitted of the charge. It is allowed in the circumstances

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• Mst. HAMRA AHSAN v. KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. through C.E.O. 2014 PLD 344
• ABDULLAH v. CNAN GROUP SPA through Chief Executive/Managing Director 2014 PLD 349
• JAFFAR KHAN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 349
• SHAHAB MAZHAR BHALLI v. PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Divisional Superintendent 2014 PLC(CS) 356
• IRFAN QADRI v. ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.II, KARACHI 2014 PLD 364
• SHAH NAWAZ v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderbad 2014 YLR 367
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL v. EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) 2014 PLD 367
• SHAKEEL AHMED KHAN v. State 2014 MLD 370

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

how to become a advocate from Killa Saifullah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes