Sections 164 and 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 302/324/34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 murder and attempt to bail out AMD, further approval of the Investigation Principle of Contingency 164 Failure to hold the testimony of the Parade Prosecutor, identified in its statements under CCPC, is the same role for all the defendants, but the trial court extended the others, except that the accused recovered the weapon. The accused was charged, who was also directly charged in the FIR prosecution. The statement of the injured witness was recorded, which was a natural witness to the incidents but did not identify the witness who was injured in the shooting in his statement under Section 161, CCP claimed that he was trying to identify the assailants. Is in position if presented to them. But the prosecution did not bother to hold an identity parade to bring the truth to the record. PC bail was allowed
Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010
