Find a Lawyer

BABO EIDAL KHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE

Section 392 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (3) Appraising evidence The only piece of evidence available on record against the accused is his identification test parade, as well as the prosecution in court. All the witnesses, except one complainant, stated that at the time of the incident, the accused had looted their faces, neither looted property nor any part of it had been recovered from the possession of the accused. There was hardly any other abusive material on record to make sure the suspects were involved. Crime If the six suspects who allegedly covered their faces at the time of the incident and were not seen by witnesses, how could the witnesses be able to identify them rationally in the identification parade, Under the circumstances, none of the witnesses was able to identify the accused, only the complainant claimed that he was able to see the face of one of the defendants, but the prosecution's version was that the witnesses had The identification of the accused was identified during the parade only if the face of an accused was seen how the witness could identify all the accused. They may and may not be based on evidence of robbery or robbery in connection with the absence of particulars relating to the physical description of the accused, but the legal requirement was that they should be convinced, although in all cases the cost. The circumstances may have been different, it was alleged that he was arrested on suspicion but did not indicate how he became suspicious because neither he nor anyone was watching. Hey immigration advocate from Kalam lawyer