Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMAD versus THE STATE

The Pakistan Penal Code Section 302 Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), which had two police witnesses recovering a pistol from the process of recovering the value 103 evidence, one of them had stated that the pistol had been abandoned at that location. Was recovered. About the suspect, but he said it was the person who recovered from the drain and another witness was not presented to the investigating officer, although his statement said the recovery was made at the indicator of the accused. However, in retrieval, this process will continue to exist as an investigating officer, while testifying witnesses will testify to the facts of the restoration where an eyewitness did not state any facts regarding the recovery. It was in his presence, then the statement of the investigating officer would not be enough. Belief in such recovery between the recovery witness statement and the site plan was arranged in connection with Rico without any identification parade, while the reason for the suspect's misidentification cannot be denied, and for that reason The trial court has the responsibility of arranging the identification parade for the investigating officer. Section 2342, the error during the investigation of the accused under the CRPC, was listed in the first PCP document related to the case, such as the inquiry sheet prepared by Mu Mursilah Doctor, which records an eyewitness account of the incident. Was not present at the location and the pistol was also recovered at that location. The suspect was in serious doubt; the firearms expert's positive report regarding the crime articles was received almost sixteen days after the incident, which is of no legal importance to the defendant's conviction. famous lower court advocate from Gilgit lawyer