Section 17 (3) of the Explanatory Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 337A (iii), 337 L (ii) and 392 of the evidence of harabah and robbery evidence was based on the FIR and the complainant's hearing on the benefit of the doubt. It is the complainant's eye that neither the witness nor his statement was related to the purpose of reviewing the account of the incident which was filed after 3 months without any plausible explanation. While the FIR was not a direct statement of the injured, it did not specifically mention whether the injured prosecution witness had beaten the injured person, who was revealed by the chief. Zim did not specifically say about his injuries through the injured witness, although he had previous acquaintance with the suspect but did not allege that he continued to accuse him of being injured by the accused. Is. Injured witnesses described the incident in different ways with different details of the case. They were inconsistent with the number of attackers, and the role played by each offender was examined approximately 3 months and 25 days after the incident and did not collect any corroborative evidence. And Medico does not want to prove the offense against the accused in the absence of a statement of the legal officer and the certificate of trust, but the evidence to the contrary cannot substantially link the accused to the commission of the crime. None of the prosecution's witnesses ever said that the accused had robbed them of articles and money. The accused was acquitted on the same charge. The evidence occurred near the Dargah and, in the presence of the persons at the Dargah, any prosecution by the prosecution
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
