There was considerable suspicion in the prosecution case defining the evidence of the joint intention evidence of the theft of section 1A1 and motorcycle of the motorcycle, which the plaintiff had clearly stated that he had investigated the incident. Did not observe as far as it was stolen. The motorcycle belonged to the complainant without any locksmith. The complainant stated in his evidence that no registration number of the motorcycle was displayed. The complainant had not submitted any document from far away. The motorcycle was owned by or was in the name of the material. In this case, the contradictions in the case were not taken into account by the two courts, which shows that the number of persons was collected at the site of the incident and at the place of arrest. No one was referred by the complainant as a witness advertiser, did they? The story of the incident from his village was fabricated, and lack of confidence and serious doubts were raised among the professionals. No points were made for settlement of the appeal case and Neither was the importance of the material on record. The decision in the appeal was primarily based on the submissions made by the appellate court through the appellant's slipshod procedure, which cannot be appreciated in any way, nor will the money be fair in compliance with the law's due process. In order to provide justice, the judgment passed by both the courts below was set aside which was already in police custody and then detained during the trial.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
