Article 302 (b), 324 and 34 of the murder, the attempt to recover the murder, the testimony of the joint intention evidence was not taken advantage of the suspect named in the FIR, who had committed the crime. In neither the FIR nor the complainant's supplementary statement, no character was charged by the witnesses during the incident, which was a serious defect in the prosecution case, the witnesses were not residents of the village. Where the incident took place, but the residents were from different villages; both witnessed the occasion, the prosecution's star witness, who was injured during the incident, could not identify the accused during the identification parade, 12 days after the incident. The identification parade was held, the witnesses were not able to identify the accused through the identification parade. Depending on the circumstances, the intrinsic value of the evidence of the eyewitness was to be seen, and the mere injuries of a witness did not mean that he was telling the whole truth to the accused who brought the accused to him. Instead of appearing on a motorcycle, Syed's witnesses did not name the accused in their statements by the police and did not take part in the identification parade proceedings. The accused persons are completely alien to the witnesses. Was. The evidence that the litigation was of no benefit was a foot tracker evidence of a weak type that the complainant had introduced in his supplementary statement in connection with the cash and mobile phone snatching by the accused, no on the currency note Identification or identification of a specific ID, or on a mobile phone that is allegedly stolen during the incident
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
