Section 17 (3) of the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 390 and 392, the definition of robbery evidence The benefit of the doubt was provided by the PPC, while the contents of the robbery were mentioned in Section 390. The PPC provided both the provisions stated that the accused should have the intention, not only to release the person from his property, but also to imprison or cause harm or death to the victim for this purpose. No such record of the trial court was available on record, nor was the firearm intended to cause harm to the complainant and his accomplice. They were used. They only damaged the glasses of the motorcycle, and the complainant and his accomplice did not testify. And they failed to provide any documentary evidence of their ownership of the stolen motorcycle, the complainant did not submit a motorcycle registration book, nor was it recovered from the prosecution's evidence and the trial court's decision, The owner of the motorcycle complaint was silent on the matter. His claim of owning a motorcycle was not substantiated The robbery factor was suspected in the absence of element, the fear of injury or injury was recovered on the identification of a hidden motorcycle suspect who was acquitted. , Such contradictions were really devastating to the prosecution. The witnesses, especially when the complainant and the prosecution witness were recognized for the enmity between the two parties, did not cooperate with each other in denying the currency notes, an FIR was filed late , Man
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
