Section 392/34 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Articles 340, 342 and 364 (2) Convention of Conviction (10 of 1984), Article 161 Robbery, Defamation of Commonwealth Evidence Remand Failure / Cancellation of Crimes Under Section 342 Put important questions to him, CR's lawyer did not have the opportunity to examine the witnesses, provided the accused was allegedly robbed of the complainant's cell phone after threatening with a weapon, allegedly robbery. Was prosecuted under the possession of the accused and convicted under Sections 392 and 34, the PPC Accreditation Prosecution witnesses during the trial by the accused himself. The strike but check eligibility could not be attributed to the responsibility of a lawyer to check. To find out the facts of the witnesses to examine the witnesses from the trial court to arrive at a fair decision of the case. But in the circumstances of the trial, the trial court did not take action. He prosecuted the matter in accordance with Article 340, CRPC and Article 61 of the legal evidence; the statement of the accused under section 342 was not recorded in accordance with the spirit of the CCP. , The trial court observed in a dubious judgment that the accused was caught with robbery mobile, yet this question was not put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 342, CR PC, To the extent he was unable to explain his position, the Record of Pursuit also disclosed the defendant's statement under Section 342, CR. The PCs were not recorded in accordance with Section 364 (2), CRPC, in which it was provided that a judge testified in his presence and at his hearing And this record
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
