Section 392 Conan testimony (10 of 1984), Article 22 Police Rules, 1934, 8 26 32 The re-evaluation of the evidence The suspected benefit of the parade procedure is that the incident took place at midnight and took place at the police station on the basis of an identity parade. had gone. Under the supervision of a deputy Thalesander, the accused were convicted under Section 392 PPC and sentenced to seven years in prison. In the absence of any convincing evidence, the prosecution should have done an identification parade that conformed to the procedures / standards listed in R26 32. The Police Rules, 1934 or the guidelines set by the country's high courts were in accordance with the procedure adopted by the prosecution and no law was guaranteed during the holding of the identification parade, under any law an investigator should There was no option of holding an identity parade inside the station, especially when the suspect / suspect appeared from the office. The ability of the station house officer, where the identifiers were seated, and the possibility of seeing the suspects before the identification parade, cannot be ruled out. Was required to be detained in prison without having to show the disclosure agency to hold the parade without identification. In a clear and transparent way for the identity parade, a self-styled procedure was adopted, with ten dummies from two suspects in the joint ID parade, according to the identity report inside the police station in the presence of the Vice-Prosecutor instead of the Magistrate First Class. Was added while the Rules of Police in accordance with R, 26 34 of 1934, nine or ten dummy of the same dress, age
Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010
