THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL SINDH versus TAJ MUHAMMAD
Sections 302, 324, 393, 398, 34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 7 (i) (a) and 25 (4) of the Convention on Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 22 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898) ), 5 417 On the morning of the trial, the effect of the robbery appeal delay against the attempted parade of Qatel MD and the identification of the parade was shown to the prosecution's witnesses in the FLR's description of the accused's explanation of the accused. The accused was tried by the trial court on the basis. During the identification parade, it was not important for the defendant to be identified by the prosecution witness in the identification parade prior to the magistrate being properly identified as the witness claimed that at the time of his arrest. He had seen the accused, otherwise the prosecution's witness could only see partial glimpses of the offender's face and that too at a time when he was in a state of terror, so, two months after the incident, Not so important was the plaintiff's simple identity in the delayed identification parade was not material, especially when the trial corps during the identification parade TA inspected the threadbare of each relevant piece of evidence and evaluated the relevant evidence available on the record, which was confirmed. For reasons based on the record and the evidence of a prosecution, being involved in nature was misinterpreted or in its true view it was not considered that his decision to succeed was unimaginable and he had no facts Or had not faced legal weakness and was based on fair and legal definition. Breath's decision did not demand interference by the High Court because of the evidence on record for good reasons.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
