AIRLINK 74.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-0.39%)
BOP 5.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.2%)
CNERGY 4.48 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.45%)
DFML 40.01 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (0.7%)
DGKC 87.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-0.51%)
FCCL 21.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.41%)
FFBL 35.03 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (1.27%)
FFL 10.02 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (2.77%)
GGL 10.57 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.76%)
HBL 114.35 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (0.49%)
HUBC 136.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-0.27%)
HUMNL 11.90 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (9.17%)
KEL 4.81 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (3%)
KOSM 4.66 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.43%)
MLCF 38.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-0.42%)
OGDC 136.07 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.05%)
PAEL 26.79 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.68%)
PIAA 20.80 Decreased By ▼ -1.69 (-7.51%)
PIBTL 6.79 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.8%)
PPL 122.89 Increased By ▲ 0.60 (0.49%)
PRL 27.00 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.11%)
PTC 14.52 Increased By ▲ 0.61 (4.39%)
SEARL 60.20 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (0.55%)
SNGP 70.60 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (0.77%)
SSGC 10.37 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.19%)
TELE 8.65 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.29%)
TPLP 11.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.79%)
TRG 65.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.85 (-1.29%)
UNITY 26.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.11%)
WTL 1.36 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.74%)
BR100 7,868 Increased By 44.2 (0.56%)
BR30 25,477 Increased By 70.9 (0.28%)
KSE100 75,413 Increased By 329.2 (0.44%)
KSE30 24,192 Increased By 98.2 (0.41%)

KARACHI: Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Saturday acquitted four members of Muttahida Qaumi Movement – London (MQM-L) in the murder case of citizens in Karachi.

According to the details, the hearing of the murder case of four citizens – named Umer, Abdul Shakoor, Kamran, and Asadullah – was held in the ATC court.

The four MQM-L members were accused of attacking the citizens on October 19, 2012, in the vicinity of Mobina Town Police Station.

During the proceedings, the prosecution failed to provide solid evidence against the four MQM-L members including Farhat Abbas, Shahzeb, Mujtaba, and Hammad. The ATC court, after hearing the argument from both sides, acquitted all the accused in the case as the evidence produced before the court is not sufficient.

Comments

Comments are closed.