Article 8 4434 / Cri34 Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) Corruption of the House, joint appeal against Brett / possession of his house was handed over to the complainant, who returned to pay the loan amount. The complainant alleged that the accused forcibly occupied the house and threw his wife out without paying any debt. The prosecution's testimony was based on the evidence of the hearing of the witnesses and none of them was the alleged witness of the complainant's wife, who was allegedly thrown out of the home or investigated. Was not cited as a witness and did not mention such fact. There are contradictions in the complaint or the FIR in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, such facts as the tenant of the landlord related to the date and time of the prosecution's witnessing while the complainant was in his possession. There was no rental agreement or rent receipt to prove that the complainant believed that the house was kept in mortgage, considering the loan amount, and that the house itself was mortgaged. And it was left to Parcell, the accused in the alleged contract between the parties, to discover that it was in favor of the complainant's son, He was a minor at the time of giving, and neither he (the minor) could execute him, nor was it mentioned in the contract that the complainant hanged him on behalf of his minor son because his guardianship agreement was not in any case. Was not listed and could not be presented in evidence The complainant filed a complaint in relation to the house
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
