Sections 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 396 and 412 of the conviction for receiving fraudulently stolen property, further investigation grants were examined during the identification parade but were conducted by key witnesses. By no means was the recovery of cash from the accused without any doubt the effect against the accused was that he facilitated his partner in committing the robbery, which resulted in the murder of a person. He was involved in the case when he was selected by witnesses. An investigation parade and cash worth Rs 20 lakh were also recovered on the spot. The complainant and other eyewitnesses who were present at the time of the incident claimed that they could identify the accused if they ever saw them again. At the time of the identification parade, he was not present to identify the suspect, and instead two other witnesses picked up the suspect during the identification parade. Both said that the other witnesses in the FIR were named after the eyewitness. Was not taken, and during the identification parade, he made a statement before the caretaker magistrate that he saw the accused descend from the vehicle and then returned to a car in the scene. The firearms were fired, a large sum of Rs 20 lakh cash was recovered on the accused's information, but could not be ruled out that the inclusion of the accused in the present case is part of the prosecution's strategy in the recovery memo. In this regard, the investigation made by the investigating officer cannot be so transparent and exposed as the prosecution question has stated whether the currency notes allegedly recovered from the accused are still a puzzle.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
