Section 13 (d) testimony was not presented to any daily entry by the prosecution through evidence to prove that the police had indeed gone to patrol the police station, a section of the prosecution had prosecuted. The root of the matter was cut off. The fact that the prosecution's version was sufficient to deny the FIR suggests that the alleged weapons recovered from the suspect's possession were sealed on the spot, citing the incident as suspicious. And so the cartridge, but it was not sent to ballistic. The expert asked to see if the weapon was in a working position but the prosecution also failed to produce a certificate under section 51010, giving the CRPC accused the section 2 342, under CRPC Weapons of crime were not encountered while recording the statement. To allege whether the pistol was a licensed weapon, under Section evidence22, the evidence of each accused was to be presented, the CCPC and unless there is evidence available against it in the evidence. His conviction could not be sustained was a policeman and no private person was appointed to act as a witness to the alleged weapons recovery and there was no explanation. In this regard, the record also did not indicate whether the person was tried from the area as a witness to the recovery, a clear violation of Section 103, accusation of weapons being recovered in the circumstances of the PC, The suspects convicted of a highly-suspected trial court were, in the circumstances, set aside.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
