Before the theft under Section 498 Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Section 379, the complainant's grant had implicated the accused on the basis of suspicion of theft of his cellphone in this case, and some cash was filed by the complainant and the prosecution. The other witness had. It turned out that it was the accused who had stolen the said items, but the record of their sources of information was completely silent, doubt or doubt, no matter how strong, could not be equated with credible evidence and The accused was entitled to receive it even at the bail-out stage. The benefit of the doubt was that the complainant failed to link the accused with any evidence during the investigation; in the present case the accused could be denied falsehood, exclusion due to the malpractice or malicious intent of the complainant. , The suspect was allowed in the situation before the arrest
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
