THE STATE THROUGH ADDITIONAL PROSECUTOR ATA versus HASHIM KHAN
Sections 302, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 7 and 25 (4) of the Criminal Procedure (V9 1898), 5 265f murder, with the attempted and disorderly conduct of the convict. Appeal against acquittal of Armed Deadly Weapons Testimony, Duty of Court Appeals to the Complainant, Trial Court Approves Trial, Under which the accused were acquitted, FIR's contents stated on the site The presence of the witnesses was revealed and one of them was cited. The witness but the name of the most important person was not presented in the witness's calendar. During the investigation, the investigating officer was obliged to list the names of witnesses or other material witnesses in the prosecution's witness list and to search and obtain them. There were efforts to be made. Attendance before the trial court, which was not done, even the trial court failed to pursue a legal course, nor issued a summons, which called for acquiring material and eyewitnesses. With the origin and aspect of this case and to administer justice, all witnesses who were required to make the statement on which the prosecution was based should have been called by the prosecution, regardless of the result of their testimony. Was for or against the trial. The court was empowered under Section 265F (2), CCPC, to ensure that the appropriate witnesses, who were aware of the facts of the prosecution's case, should have been produced, but they were not. The trial court failed to fulfill its obligation, therefore, in the absence of this, the verdict of the material witnesses could be reached by the High Court.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
