The applicant requested to present additional evidence in the case in order to present Section 540 additional evidence. One was a doctor who examined the applicant and his son, while the other was the one who went to the scene of the rescue report and submitted a report about the factual position of the applicant. The presence of two witnesses was necessary in order to meet the conclusion of justice. On the other hand, the prosecution strongly opposed the plea on the ground that the majority of the witnesses appeared in the trial court. That the applicant and his son were not a realistic position of appeal in connection with the injuries, as they were allegedly beaten up by the public at the scene of the incident and no attempt to investigate the other person was necessary. Because the ocular evidence in the case was sufficient to be considered for the decision of the appellant, the position of the prosecutor was quite correct as no such request was made by the applicant to the trial court when the witnesses were presented otherwise. There was no evidence when it was necessary that the police papers of both counsel and others were on record, while the facts of the case were also explained in relation to the information of Rescue 15.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
