An application for alibi impact patent application was filed to try to eliminate Section 561A, 161, 164 and 169 panel codes (XLV of 1860), sections 302/324/34 of the AMD's personal attempt to murder. A, CRPC recorded the statements of six persons who, under the Investigation Officer's Investigation Officer, had been released and declared innocent by the Investigation Officer for the cancellation of personal post. Had stated that in the relevant history the accused was not present at the scene of the incident. He said that in the history of his investigating officer's father had gone somewhere else in connection with the winner, statements made under Section 161, CRPC were believed, taken by the accused Investigation Officer. The suspect in connection with Gaya Albi's request could not be released. The statements made under Section 161, CRPC or Section 164, CRPC, are the basis of such statements, unless such statements are true by a court of competent jurisdiction. The evidence was required to be proved only by evidence and not only on the statements of some persons registered under Section 161, the CCP Investigation Officer followed the statements made under Section 161, CRPC. It was not yet proved at the trial stage. It had no significant value, lack of evidence in the form of an FIR filed by the complainant, but it was sufficient to link the culprits with the commission of the crime, without any evidence in the trial. Was offered a substantial declaration, otherwise the request was allowed, the impugned action of the authority was declared invalid and illegal
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
