Find a Lawyer

KHALID JAVED versus THE STATE

The filing of an additional statement by the informant after the filing of the FIR under Sections 154, 161 and 162 of the Contempt Rule (XLV of 1860), with the different versions, the value of such supplementary statement as a witness under Section 161 Was no more than a statement from The object of recording the CCPC and such statement was not for the purpose of proving contradictions between the statement of its witness in court and the statement made in accordance with the provisions of Section 162, the contents of the CRPC. The FIR, in the present case, being an earlier statement, can be compared to the statement filed by the first informant about the oath in court, in the present case both statements revealed two different versions, in particular At the point of designation of the accused as such; Name any supplementary statement can not be relied on as legal fir and rented the two versions of the new admitted and would create a situation in question. Which version of the prosecution may have been accepted by the witness who made clear contradictions, errors and corrections in his court statement, which was in accordance with the contents of the FIR in his statement to the police or if he was a complainant or He was a witness and his statement was filed under Section 161, CR PC, that such a witness should be considered as completely untrustworthy witness and it would not be appropriate to rely on his evidence clearly. Pakistan, top advocate family court from Ghuzdar lawyer