Section 2 3034 / at Q The benefit of the evidence, the joint intention of the evidence, from the FIR, revealed that the incident was absent, there was material contradictory tension in two statements of the prosecution witnesses, one at a time and the other at section 64. , Under the auspices of the PC, the statement of testimony that was recorded by them before the trial court was made in order to bring their witnesses in line with the statements of other witnesses on the statement of such witness There can be no reliance on who has improved his statement. If the witness in court was to be judged correctly, then many questions would arise which showed that the witness's questionable testimony on the third day did not tell anyone about the incident until the third day, appeared unnatural. And it gives the impression that he was not seen the last time he witnessed the incident. There were also poor circumstances to punish the accused and the witness made his recording statement under Section 11, CRPC. Made a contradictory statement in connection with the incident and was denied by documentary evidence, after which his identity was held after Parade 10. There was no record in the record for any unusual delay in holding the identity parade on the day of the arrest of the accused Identification Parade during the identification parade did not identify the defendant by squeezing his role otherwise. The weakest kind was proof. , A delay was made and it did not go according to the default procedure and doubts were raised on the suspect's identity, contradicting the recovery memo in the complaint filed by the complainant mentioned in the FIR and recovery memo.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
