GHULAM RASOOL versus THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT
The Complaints Complaint of Articles 3, 5, 15 and 25 of the conviction of the convicted AMD evidence, which appeared as a prosecution witness, was substantially examined, but they were taken into FIR and examination by Chief Syed's witness. Gaya remained on the version, though it did make some improvements to the statement contrary to the statement filed by the police under Section 161, CCPC, but such improvement was not sufficient, another prosecution witness said. Told the details of the incident, the witness was not suggested that he and other witnesses were not present. On the spot and the incident was not observed. The witness was taken on a lengthy cross examination and a large part of the cross examination was in connection with the identity parade; no animosity was suggested from the above witness except the complainant and other witnesses who were the real brother of the victim. Other independent witnesses who were not affiliated with the complaining party nor suggested any hostility were independent witnesses from the area and fully support the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, such free and In the presence of untrustworthy witnesses whose testimony was reliable and proved true, the complainant and The relevant witness statements can be affected badly. On the one hand, all the statements were to rely on the prosecution's testimony which could be relied upon in the statement of the deceased who later died, which was an important evidence, correctly recorded by police FIR. That was recorded correctly, was not a false and fabricated document. Recorded the day after the incident
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2012
