Further investigation into Section 497 (2) Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 302/34 bail, FIR: It was against the accused that he stabbed the dead FIR, however, It was not specifically mentioned that the accused complainant had been stolen by the accused but that his cousin had examined him under Section 11, relating to the murder commission. Aware of this, the PC Complainant did not allege in his statement that such dispute between the contents of the FIR and Section 164 was carried out with a knife and the accused was seen running away. The CRP witness's statement raised reasonable doubt that only a temporary diagnosis had to be made and deep appreciation had to be avoided, without having to comply with the R25% of the Police Rules of 1934 and without the participation or release of a doctor. The witness's announcement of the death of the deceased in front of the police officer was suspicious; and no investigation could be made at this stage of the bail; a decision had to be made in the case, whether he was capable of making a declaration of the deceased or not. , The deceased statement was allegedly listed before the FIR was registered, but its contents were not included in the FIR Was. , Who raised suspicion about the authenticity of the dying declaration, had already been granted bail by the co-accused, the role assigned to all the accused in the FIR was the same and in the trial against all the accused. The same principle of consistency can be invoked. The defendants had no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed a crime under the prohibited clause of section 497.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
