Sections 5, 15 and 25 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), 5302 Double conviction of the crime charged on the accused after being acquitted of the reprimand of the evidence against the arrest of the convict, both by the complaining party / appellant by the courts The fact that was entered was discovered. The court was not able to identify anything material to satisfy that the conclusions drawn by the courts below were inaccurate, or the record did not support that the statement of the witnesses was contentious without any examination. Well, as can be acknowledged, it was not. Strange, acceptable according to the situation and the facts of the case, if this witness is considered credible, natural and credible, while in the present case, the conduct and conduct of the single-eyed witness. It made his entire statement doubtful and untrustworthy when the statement was not completely credible, so it would be irresponsible whether any part of the statement was challenged in cross-examination, whether the defense had material The point was examined by the witness, there was no such argument. The prosecution's testimony raised suspicion about its credibility and truthfulness, while none of the statements recorded under Section 164, CRPC, acknowledged the date of its recording. It was the legal duty of the magistrate to record a statement under Section 11, CRPC. In the manner prescribed for recording the evidence or in the manner provided under Section 646464, the CCP did not comply with the statutory mandatory requirement by the magistrate, while recording the statement 164
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2012
