Sections 392/34 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13D robbery, joint intent, possession of illegal weapons were fully corroborated by the testimony of two other prosecution witnesses (police officers), Two of them were independent witnesses who, after cross-examining the accused, eventually proved that he had a weapon, as he had only advised that he did not shoot at the same suspect as he had done at the complainant's house. They were not beaten and tied. During the theft, it was reported that the suspect was present at the time of the incident as he never disagreed with the fact. It was alleged that for the first time in his appeal, he had appealed to the following court that he had a case with the complainant and had failed to pay. The outstanding amount, which caused him to be involved in the crime itself, at such intervals, the defense showed that nothing could be gained by putting the complainant behind the trial, thus earning his dues. Risking the recovery did not involve firing or killing a person in the present case, it was merely a matter of having a licensed weapon, so it was not important to send the weapon to the expert's report. Instead of possessing unlicensed weapons, and such proceedings, unconfirmed proceedings, non-refusal and fact-finding under various facts, the accused had come to the conclusion that the accused was found on the spot. ? And unlicensed weapons were recovered from him, causing him to have no viable defense. Under the circumstances, the accused's eyes
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
