Sections 2 302 (b) /, 34, 2l2 and 111111 Receiving stolen property of murder, common intention, robbery and dishonesty Assessing evidence All the accused persons were strangers to the complainant Details of the accused in the FIR earlier The accused was identified as described by the prosecution's witnesses as the absence of the identification parade was irrelevant; in both cases the version of both the prosecution witnesses was stable, consistent, straightforward and relied on all material details. Worthwhile, he had long been put to cross-examination. The statement of the prosecutor's prosecution witness for the accused, who witnessed the murder and the snatching of the car, remained unconfirmed during the cross-examination Medical evidence fully supported the said testimony, and the extent of the injury to his statement. Medical evidence has been confirmed to date. This type of weapon is used to inflict such injuries and injuries to the crime-recovered arms of the accused sent to the ballistic expert against the crime scene recovered from the scene of the incident. had gone. And the Ballistic Express report was positive, which reinforced the prosecutor's version The defense version was nothing but a simple denial of defense that the victim was fired by unknown people and falsely told them to fill the gap. Was involved. Cannot be proved by any compelling evidence, the accused persons did not even appear before the trial court in support of their defense under section 4040 ((?)), CRPC alleging that the article Prove the application taken in defense under 121. The law
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
