Sections 353 and 512 of the Code of Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 47 Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Section 365 A & 109 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) abduction or abduction or extortion of property. Evidence for kidnapping, valuing property, etc., for kidnapping for ransom, kidnapping for ransom or hostage, evidence presented in the presence of the accused was presented in court in the absence of the scope challan accused and against the accused. Evidence of legal proceedings was investigated. One of the co-accused was arrested and the witnesses who were examined earlier were called back for cross-examination by the aforementioned co-accused on the basis of the tests they had already recorded. What was, the CRPC said, is that the witness's chief must take the test. It was not enough for me to cross-examine in the presence of the accused or in the presence of witnesses by his lawyer. Such mandatory rule of law failed Article 512 of the trial, CRPC and Article 47 of the testimony 1984, the trial court was empowered to believe the evidence of the witness in the absence of the accused, the accused Provided that upon the arrest, such witness was dead or unable to provide evidence or his attendance could not be obtained without delay or expense amount. In the present case, the witnesses were presented and the accused was sent They were allowed to be examined on the basis of the scrutiny they had already entered in the trial, which was enforced under section 353. A violation of the wallow, the PC will need to re-examine prosecution witnesses in his presence, the Mills
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
