The value of the evidence in Section 9 (c) Police Rules, 1934, RR 25 3 and 25 4 was not presented to the complainant police officer in the FIR before the court bag from which the drug was recovered, and It was opened after receiving the key from. The accused, but he was not taken into custody, the investigating officer did not see the case property at the scene of the incident nor did he detain it, the Syed police officer was also given the details of the case property in the court. Was unsuccessful and conflicted with other prosecutor's testimony regarding the property and other material details of the case, secretly deleting the police officer who complained of the prosecutor's evidence raised very doubt in the prosecution's version And the trial court's observation in this regard was inconsistent. Several pieces of evidence contained in the record violation of RR 25 3 and 25 4 of the Police Rules 1934, along with other defects and doubts arising in this case. , The prosecutor's story was contaminated and blurred. The accused was acquitted in circumstances. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
