Find a Lawyer

GULSHAN versus STATE

Section 459, 324, 337a (i), 337a (iii), 337f (iii) and 34 criminal code of conduct (V 1898), sections 164, 342, 367 and 540 evidence defining the benefit of doubt, the identity test; Identity confession The inability of the accused to present specific questions to the accused in the court of justice such as the decision on the facts available in the evidence against them was not presented in terms of section 676767, the effect of the PC against the accused / appellant. It was on the night of the incident that he entered the complainant's house, and he suffered a butt injury to the complainant and a firearm on the witness of the eye. The trial court sentenced the two accused / appellants to five years imprisonment and acquitted the two accomplices. According to the confession, the complainant knew the accused before the incident but did not name them in the FIR. The complainant and another eyewitness did not state that they went to the magistrate's court and there was no specific part to identify the accused in the identity test conducted by the magistrate's identity parade. The evidence, however, was a controversial significance of an authentic testimony. In the present case, the main evidence was the evidence of the complainant and other eyewitnesses, but they did not state that they had ever identified the accused in an identification parade. The missing piece of evidence, the trial evidence lost its significance, the trial court did not submit the evidence to the accused for identification so that their explanation could be obtained if any evidence under section 342, CR PC, in its statement. If no piece of information has been placed before the accused, then it should not be used against him. Do not use the proof of the identity parade for his conviction against the accused immigration advocates email from Ziarat lawyer