Section 395 Crimes against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (3) The benefit of the suspect in appreciating the testimony of dacoity and haraba was found guilty and the trial court on the charge of committing robbery. The sentence was pronounced. The witnesses, who were the star witnesses to the incident, deny the complainant's evidence, and even the accused cannot be identified, since the prosecutor failed to establish a charge beyond reasonable doubt as there was no evidence against the accused There was not enough evidence because the system of safe criminal administration of justice demanded that only one reasonable dent was sufficient to make the whole matter suspicious and that the benefit should be given to the accused as a matter of fact and not of grace. In this case, the guilty plea can lead to misunderstanding of justice, even from the conviction of the innocent High Court. Egypt is not. The trial court has convicted the accused and sentenced me to misread and not read the evidence. Appeal was allowed in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
