Articles 6 376 and 6 66 A rape, luring or detaining a woman with criminal ambitions or deferring evidence Defining evidence The benefit of the doubt did not explain the delay of five days in the FIR registration , Which showed that the matter was received after reporting it to the police. The counsel and the complainant had taken different standings on various stages, which after their recovery, in their statement under the Prosecution Officer, CCPC, before the Investigation Officer, Under, the accused was not charged with adultery, after his recovery, provoked the story of the alleged kidnapper. But in her statement before the trial court, she alleged that both witnesses of the alleged abduction were not produced before the trial court to prove their recovery, even from the house of the old woman. He was also allegedly kidnapped, not brought to trial before the trial court. He did not support retrieval proceedings in preventing such evidence, suggesting that Victim, who was in the trial The star in the case was a witness and the story was prepared by the prosecutor to falsely implicate the accused, but he This single statement was very important, but he also did not stand on one point, and he tried to improve the story of the prosecutor presented in the FIR, two co-accused already denied the same evidence. While doing so, the same set could not be relied upon to prove the crime to some extent. Defective evidence of the accused was presented by the complainant
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
