Sections 302 (b), 337d, 337f (iii) (vi) and 34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 7 (a) (c) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), section 13 ( E) Law E-Testimony (February 10, 1984), Article 22 Determining evidence for murder, intercourse, interdiction, terrorism cases and unauthorized possession of evidence Identification parade Evidence against compulsory suspects The only parade was held IR contents that witnesses saw the suspect for the first time. In such cases, the identity parade became mandatory, which was strictly in accordance with the law after it was completed. The role of the accused in the identification test should be described by the witnesses, however, the witnesses did not specify the role at that time. Would have Identity Parade, the identity test loses its value and cannot be relied on the same characteristics, the characteristics and construction of the dummy should be similar to that of the accused, but in the present case, all the witnesses who had identified the accused in different identity tests. And the Magistrate conducting the Identity Test admitted that the dummy had different characteristics, description and height at the time of the Identity Test. The Magistrate did not consider the requirements of the law while conducting the Identity Test. The test was taken. The witnesses' statements were recorded by the Investigator after a nine-day delay, with no NG officer delay and no plausible explanation of such an unusual delay was available. The witnesses had modified their statements and exaggerated. The recovery of Kalashnikov and motorcycles was also suspicious as no person in the area was cited as a witness. Section 10
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
