Sections 324, 392 and 394 (Enforcement of the Jewish) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Sections 17 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (V9 1898), Sections 236 and 237, definition of evidence of fine, robbery, forbidden suspicion. Benefit only two witnesses examined by the complainant in the robbery prosecution and the injury received by the prosecution witness did not affect the recovery of the robbery from the accused, nor did the crime Weapons recovered, identification parade was not held after arrest. Although it was necessary to prove the prosecution's case when neither the accused's name was disclosed nor any details or details were disclosed in the alleged FIR, it was still necessary for the prosecution to arrest him. Putting the accused in the identity parade proves his case. In the present case, the prosecution did not explain the identity parade of the accused to any magistrate so that he could identify the complainant and the injured. During the trial, my identification of the witness before the trial court was not necessary for the conviction of the accused without confirming any evidence; the record revealed that the accused's name appeared on the challan sheet without any prior information source, Because the anonymity was available to the accused or the investigating officer, what material was available to the accused by the trial court for linking the commission to the crime, giving the accused the benefit of the doubt and the accused Sentenced on set. The witnesses only saw and identified the accused during the recording of their evidence in the trial court. Such identification has led to doubt about the prosecution and such.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
