Section 302 (b) Law in the Testimony (10 of 1984), Article 164 Definition of Qatil Ahmed Proof. Video film Proof Belt Recovery Impact The trial court relied on the closure of the Closet Circuit Television (CCTV) film and weapons and sentenced the accused to prison. Accuracy of life is not enough to produce a CCTV video as a piece of evidence and review it in open court unless it is confirmed until the truth of such CCTV video As evidence, it was not necessary to examine the prosecution. The person who recorded the video failed to meet the prosecution to testify, who needed it, to the CCTV Video Provider Investigation Officer, who obtained the CCTV video. He failed to identify her, who in her evidence says she obtained it from someone who did not accept her. As the person of an investigating officer who wants to disclose his name or identity, the investigating officer admitted that nothing in the video was visible and identifiable. ECTV was not credible evidence 6 months after the incident. Later the recovery of arms took effect and 4 days after the arrest of the accused VPN, the vacancies recovered from the scene were sent to the forensic division for 4 months and 10 months. There was no investigation and no explanation from the prosecution that there was no sanction for such evidence, and no dependence could be placed on such a place where there was a vacancy and crime. Criminal case, when there is no ocular evidence of circumstance, prosecution
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
