The accused was acquitted in the main case of section 13 (e) unlicensed weapons of proof, and the present case was the main shoot of the accused, in which case, the complainant was entitled to be acquitted in the present case. He was the investigating officer in the case and the trial court denied his evidence in these cases, but the accused was nevertheless convicted and sentenced on the basis of the evidence that he accused the police party of being an accused. Went and investigated all the cases through the Deputy Tehsildar who lodged an FIR, recovery memo, site plan PRO and recorded statements of witnesses, which was not guaranteed under the law, many people gathered at the scene said that the prosecution witnesses, but the investigator tried. Refer to any of them as a witness to witness the recovery of weapons and ammunition from the possession of the accused under section 103 compulsory possession. The CRPC, in the circumstances, was violated, as there is no explanation available on the record as to why the testimony of the public was not allegedly linked, in the absence of such evidence, Including reports, convictions and convictions of the Franzic Science Laboratory. Honoring the accused by the trial court, the trial court's adjudication decision, set aside in the case of not justifying and punishing the accused, \ r \ n
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
