Scribd
Upload
101 views3 pages

Allah Wasaya

The document is an appeal filed in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench against a criminal conviction. The appellant, Abdul Hameed, was convicted under section 13/XX/65 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to 7 years in prison. The appeal argues that the evidence against the appellant was planted and there was no corroboration of witness testimony. The appellant requests that the conviction be set aside and he be acquitted.

Uploaded by

api-3745637
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
101 views3 pages

Allah Wasaya

The document is an appeal filed in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench against a criminal conviction. The appellant, Abdul Hameed, was convicted under section 13/XX/65 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to 7 years in prison. The appeal argues that the evidence against the appellant was planted and there was no corroboration of witness testimony. The appellant requests that the conviction be set aside and he be acquitted.

Uploaded by

api-3745637
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

Cr. Appeal No. _________/2001

Abdul Hameed S/o Malik Mahi, caste Kharawla, R/o Mauza


Shehr Sultan, P.S. Shehr Sultan, Tehsil Jatoi, District
Muzaffargarh.
……..Appellant
VERSUS
The State. ……Respondent

Appeal U/s 410 Cr.P.C. against the


judgment dated 25.10.2001 passed by Mr.
Muhammad Rasheed Qamar Additional
Sessions Judge Ali Pur District,
Muzaffargarh, by which, the appellants
were convicted.

Sentence: -
7 years R.I.

Case: -
F.I.R. No. 145 dated 29.4.2001
U/s 13/XX/65 Arms Ordinance.
P.S. Shehr Sultan (Muzaffargarh).
GROUNDS

1. That it was an unseen occurrence and is planted upon the


appellants.

2. That there was no evidence against the appellants, but the


same was created for false implication of the appellants.

3. That the element of corroboration remained absent from the


ocular evidence of the prosecution.

4. That the learned Trial Court did not discuss the evidence,
especially the defence plea of appellants/accused.

5. That it was a clear case of misreading and non-reading of the


evidence.

6. That the impugned judgment has caused a great mis-carriage


of justice to the appellants. Copy is Annex “A”.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned


submissions, the impugned judgment may please be set
aside and the appellants may please be acquitted from
the charge.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit, may also be awarded in the interest of justice and
equity.

Humble Appellants,

Dated: ________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

Cr. Appeal No. _________/2001

Abdul Hameed Vs. The State.

INDEX

S. No. DETAIL OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES


1 Opening Sheet.
2 Memo of Appeal.
3 Copy of Judgment. A
4 Power of Attorney.

APPELLANT

Dated: ____________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

You might also like