Section 412 Unlawfully Receiving Stolen Property in the Robbery Commission Testimony of Evidence The trial court prosecution included evidence of a single recovery witness, who was head constable, allegedly also a recovery adviser, And the evidence was not corroborated by any other witness, the prosecutor's complaining section HO, who was also a witness to the recovery, did not investigate before the trial court because he did not know the police. The constable, who was the driver of the police mobile in which the raiding party arrived on the spot, also went F was not. The prosecutor, for no reason, though the name of the witness appeared in the list of witnesses on the challan, the prosecuting attorney's investigating officer, who was not a witness to the recovery. And he identified / confirmed the complainant's signature, which said that the evidence of the witness, as far as the arrest and recovery were concerned, was not helpful for the prosecution to substantiate the evidence of the sole witness, such material Points were investigated by the prosecution. The car, which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused, was not presented to the trial court daily on the basis of which the complaining party left the police station and took the effect of the alleged recovery. Not done. Evidence of the prosecution's witnesses In view of the contradictions and other defects in the case of the prosecution, the story of the prosecutor was not credible, the accused served a substantial sentence, while he remained in jail and only one year, 8 months and 19 days remained. With regard to litigation, it cannot be said that
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
