Section 302 (b) / 365A / 114/109 / 34A Anti-Terrorism Act (XX VII of 1997), Section 7 (a) and (e) Convention on the Martyrdom (10 of 1984), Article 22 Counseling, abduction or Evidence of confiscated property confiscated, valuable security and detention, therefore, cannot be ruled out in advance of the suspect. Another prosecution witness was close to the investigating officer because he had been involved in numerous criminal cases and had been in jail for a long time and there was evidence of this. The prosecution's testimony cannot be accepted according to its value The investigating officer admitted in his investigation that after the identification parade, the accused and the witnesses were taken to the police in the same vehicle to the station if the accused and the witnesses were separated. If the vehicle was taken to court, then it should explain where the other vehicle went and why the accused and the witnesses traveled in the same vehicle. The investigating officer also admitted that when the prosecution witness came. The police station, the suspects were in the lockup, a prosecution witness alleged that he felt deadly and that the accusation was from the administration of a narcotic substance but did not present a chemical report of any intoxicating substance. The prosecution testified that he had made telephone calls but the investigating officer did not seize the tape and did not receive any voice-over information. The investigating officer also admitted that he did not inspect the petrol pump, where the prosecution witness stated that the suspect had seen the suspect with the investigating officer but that he had recorded the statement of one of the accused. Do not submit this statement in court inquiry
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
