Although section 497 (2) of the Contempt of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Sections 395 and 412 bail, further investigation grants were designated in the FIR, but their role was not stated because the incident had been reported missing. Because if all the witnesses mentioned above were present at the scene of the incident, and as there was no mention in the FIR that the suspects, including their accomplices, were armed, they could easily be captured by eyewitnesses. Was, if the accused were armed, then it could be believed that they had seen the incident and could not have been arrested. The suspects were armed, but there was no recorded case was not mentioned in the FIR feature or physical development of individuals. Identified by witnesses, then they could be identified later or their names could be mentioned in the FIR. In the event of absences, the requirement of the law will be the benefit of the litigants in connection with such misidentification of their Identity Witness account, which is mentioned in the supplementary statement of the two persons, it has been revealed that He did not see the accused directly, but in his statement under Section 161, CCPC, he said that he had heard from one person that the accused persons were so many and hence the evidence of the hearing was of no importance. And he was not credible in the eyes of the law did not affect the recovery of the accused's stolen fabric. This was a joint retrieval from the same person, which also had an impact on the accompanying accused.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
