Find a Lawyer

KHYBER versus STATE

Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 17 (2) Complaint of Evidence Testimony The FIR charged only two persons, whose second witness, who was closely related to the complainant, was the third accused. But also acknowledged that in his statement under 5 161, the CCP never mentioned the third suspect, other than the accused charged by the police during the investigation and the recovery of the stolen property. According to witnesses, the stolen property was taken away at the time of the incident. Where the stolen property was recovered, the recovered articles were neither presented to the court nor properly identified by the complainant so that nothing was available to prove that they had been recovered. The articles belonged to the complainant and were part of stolen property. The accused were not recorded in accordance with the law and were not credible. Weapons were recovered but not from the accused mentioned in the FIR: the case against the accused, Gain was full of doubts and the accused was acquitted. Under the circumstances online advocate from Kurram lawyer