Section 20 Preventive Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 395, 411, 458 and 149 of Haramba, robber, receiving fraudulently stolen property and appreciating evidence by concealing domestic crime delayed 8 days in filing FIR There was no full explanation and no details of the suspects. In a situation not mentioned in the FIR, the identity of the accused was necessary, but it was not conducted. The identity parade could not be held as the accused was later found in possession of robbery articles. The persons recovering the pistol of the crime from the accused were suspicious as no independent witness was recovered in the presence of any evidence nor the weapons used in the commission of the crime were explained in the FIR. And the supplementary statement did not explain the suspect's role during the incident. The accused persons were not included in the FIR. Many improvements were made by the complainant at the time of HI. In this case, no such statement can be relied on on the supplementary statement to include the accused. The charges were not proved against the four accused, who were said to have been present at the scene of the incident. There were three male members, besides women and children, on the occasion, but none of them shouted when the accused left the scene, despite the fact that the accused was living in the locality, Could not be identified. The residents said; and they did not fight against the property under Article 20 (Enforcement) Ordinance 1979 and to save their home from the crime of robbery in Haraba and the PPC.
