Section 2 302 Confirming the testimony of the defendant, the reduction in presenting the lawyer, who voluntarily appeared on behalf of the accused, requested that no lawyer was provided to the accused at the time of the indictment, But it was later confirmed and provided evidence. The prosecution's testimony was recorded on the same day as the first time it appeared to the lawyer when the accused's lawyer did not object to the recording of these examinations at the time of the first appointment. He did not claim anywhere that the accused was acting in his defense in any way when he was accused of not being represented by a lawyer when his lawyer's waiver was not accepted and he was denied The record and the action were not understandable. In this case, the lawyer's argument had no meaning. Regarding the accused's lawyer, the complainant had merely stated in his evidence that the victim was undergoing hatchet, but it was not stated that he was badly beaten. The dispute had no power because, while recording the statement under Section 342, the CRPC had alleged the question of the recovery of blood-stained land that Hatchi had at the time of recording the statement under Section 342. The recovery was not made before the accused, and the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses was found to be doubtful, arguing that there were contradictions between ocular and medical. Evidence, and this contradiction was also found in the testimony of the complainant / prosecutor regarding the blow given by the three persons, therefore, there is no need to accept the defendant who said it clearly and clearly.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
