Sections 392 and 411 against the Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 20 theft point, FIR filed and the name of a robber, during the trial the complainant confessed to the incident, but He said that the accused shown to him in court was not the Investigation Officer, preferring his subordinates, rather than seeking private witnesses, even though private persons were available and allegedly at a hotel near the arrest and recovery site. The trial court found that the robbery was not proven and was the only way to obtain and maintain the stolen property. Zam was proved, was not the case against the accused, he was acquitted. Give the benefit of the doubt to the circumstances
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
