Sections 302 (b) and 392 of the murder conviction can be viewed as evidence of the robbery, the driver sued for the victim's lawsuit, and his wife (co-accused) deposed for special child care. Done. The dead, both should have been present at the home / incident at the time of the incident. Injuries to the deceased person did not take place, nor did the defense party themselves come forward with the request of injuring persons whose nature and locality were injured. Made it clear that the victim was murdered, the investigating officer did not act strictly while any misconduct should not be made by the investigating officer during the arrest of the accused, especially in disgusting cases. The prosecution was established. Recovery of articles relating to the capture of the accused, which provided the way for contact with the accused, provided a fine fingerprint of the accused on the glass, recovered from the scene of the incident. The accused's confessional statement was based on circumstantial evidence; the accused did not complain upon receipt. At the time of his confessional statement, the removal of a confessional statement from a misconduct, pressure or coercion did not have any effect on the unrelated links to the surrounding circumstances / relevant facts, which, in the investigation, proved the culprit of the misconduct. There was no help for the defense, because some material facts made an unbreakable chain of circumstances, which in the first case constituted the trial of the accused trial court, in which case, he took no illegal action. And the accused was convicted. The court, whereby the accused is sentenced to death
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015
