In the FIR, the names of the accused were neither named nor mentioned in the FIR. Section 2 302 (b), 3 Qat and Q 34 Qatil-e-Azam, the robbery attempt, the testimony of the joint intention evidence. , Identified the accused in the light of a motorcycle, driven by the deceased's brother, who was at a considerable distance, possibly not known to the complainant and his brother, but said that the fact in the FIR prosecution Was not made who claimed that there were two witnesses at the time of the prosecution. The victim was 10/20 feet away and had witnessed the incident, but his name or presence was not mentioned in the FIR. The prosecution witnesses were not mentioned in any rough site plan. Nor was the prosecutor's witness in the scale site plan, who was the brother of the victim, a witness of the occasion. He could not justify his presence on the spot, on strange occasions at night, the presence of witnesses at the time of the incident was very suspicious, in which case the evidence presented by the prosecution witness The evidence was not credible The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused was jointly done by the accused, had no value in the eyes of the law, no description of the role of the accused in the evidence, or the reason for the commission of the crime. The extra-judicial accusations were not stated, however, evidence of extra-judicial confession, which is a weak category Booth was an easily obtainable alleged extra-judicial confession, not capable of asserting the independent sovereignty of the crime being available.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
