Section 337F (i) / 337A (iii) / 379/148/149 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Appeal against the eviction of Section 417 (2A) in any of the five accused named in the FIR Was not blamed for the particular role. Instead of hurting the prosecution's witnesses, they were collectively held responsible for it, challenging the acquittal of the five accused, though their role was similar to that of the other three accused. An injured prosecution witness was not produced during that time. The trial and even the other injured witness did not cause any injury to any of the accused. The witness did not have any problem with the nature of the incident, two of the accused were also injured. It was also possible for a fair assessment and scrutiny of evidence when contradictory conclusions were reached by the trial court. Otherwise, the complainant was not incensed. According to Section 417 (2A), the CRPC As he was not injured in the incident nor was he his eyewitness and his eye was not related to the witnesses, thus, no appeal was made against acquittal of the accused. There was no competent authority, and accordingly he was excluded
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
