HE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL SINDH/PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SINDH versus MUHAMMAD JUMAN
The prosecution did not examine the injured person in this case without any legal excuse, in the benefit of the doubt in attempting to appeal the section 417 (2A) Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 302/324 murder trial and acquittal. Of The idea that if he was examined, he did not support the prosecution's case, said that witnesses were too content to be eyewitnesses because he was injured. The other person, who was a materialist, was the victim of the incident, while the other witnesses, including the complainant, were closely associated with each other and were obliged to help each other. Safe weapons and empty specialists were not sent. However, while blood stained material is reported to the specialist, there is a delay of more than two years in terms of delivery. Hardly anyone could carry the weight, the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt; the trial court, in the circumstances, acquitted them on suspicion. Such a universal judgment in the interest of justice would bring the accused to trial because one of the conceptions of dual innocence was not able to convince the state that there was no error or illegality on the basis of non-application and misrepresentation. The court did not agree with the verdict. The content produced by the prosecutor leading to the miscarriage of justice was, in the circumstances, excluded
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
