Articles 2/2/3939 / at / 60/3434 Prisoners, voluntarily committing robbery, preventing domestic abuse or breaking into a house at night. Validation of evidence doubt The benefit of the doubt was initially, an FIR was filed by the complainant against some unidentified offenders, whose forms the complainant described in the FIR stated in the FIR He was sleeping and his wife heard some footsteps from the outside and when he entered the offender's house, the complainant's statement was corrected, however at the time of the incident, the entire family including While watching a movie, when they heard some noise, the prosecution had only evidence against the accused that his identity was being used by witnesses during the parade. That happened and there was no other evidence on record to contact the accused. No article was taken from the complainant's house by the Commission of Crime accused, no bullet was allegedly fired by the accused, the recovery of the pistol did not indicate that the accused had recovered from it. The pistol that was taken by the accused at the time of the incident is not mentioned in the identification parade proceedings, which the eyewitness has alleged that each accused was given a special role in the delay of seven days. Is. After the identification parade was held after the arrest of the accused, the two accused were identified as the parade, although witnesses allegedly identified the accused in the identification parade, but they described the role of each accused identified in the incident. Did not Parade that did not follow the rules
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
