Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus BASHARAT HAYAT

Claims 457, 395, 337a (i), 337l (i) and 412 evidence of the benefit of the doubt The crime of robbery was committed in the dark of the night, according to the complainant, eight suspects were seen with one eye. Witness in the light of the bulb, but he was not captured during the interrogation, no accused was mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, though in his supplement the next day for the complainant. The statement gave full details of the names of the accused, whose identity was lost in the parade utility as the accused was already known to the complainant. Preventive measures were not necessary for the purposes letter to hide their identity and behavior. There was nothing acceptable in that regard, witnesses picked up the accused during the identification parade without specifying their individual role during the allegations. He did not disclose the magistrate's report, which was not disclosed to any of the accused during his statement under Section 342, CRPC, who did not identify the accused, and even at trial. The parade was monitored. The indictment by the prosecution was, therefore, suspicious and the prosecution failed to prove that the robber was actually prosecuted by the current accused, the Benefit suspect, whenever the accused went to the minor and the legal matter He was acquitted of the charges, which were not made. Sections 959595, 7457, 7337A (I) and 7 337L (I), PPC, however, did not prove to be the main crime of robber by establishing the recovery of the property only recovered from the accused, which returned to indicate. how to become a advocate from Bhera lawyer