The accused named in the FIR were not named by the accused, but they were involved a month later, in connection with the prosecution's attempt to commit sections 302 (b), 324 and 337 D, killing Qatiel Ahmed. ? No additional statement of the complainant was recorded separately by the investigating officer. And the only complainant's request in which he played a specific role in the name of the accused was the record, which the trial court deemed to be a supplementary statement. Such a subpoena had no significance in the eyes of the law. To be In the event, his statement had to be substantiated by the testimony of an eyewitness who was an injured witness, he did not name any of the accused in his statement under section 161, for the CCP witness to bring him. Lots of improvements. According to his father / complainant's statement, the statement said that in fact the presence of the icons had raised doubts. The incident took place at 10 pm, identification of the accused was necessary but it was not. In the present case, the co-accused / accusers had filed a statement under Section 2342, CRPC, before it was granted its status and second when it was approved and many contradictions were found. Both statements cannot be relied upon in the report of 12 bore guns and the report of the forensic science laboratory, as restored ten days after the arrest of the accused. ; And said that the forensic science laboratory's office had obtained about fifteen days after the recovery of guns and emptiness when the evacuation and weapons were simultaneously sent to the forensic science laboratory, Fran.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
