Find a Lawyer

ALLAH DITTA versus THE STATE

Pakistan Penal Code Section 392/397 Police Rules, 1934, Volume II, Chap XXX, R 26 The co-accused of the testimony of the witnesses did not know about the complainant before and after a moment's reflection they did not believe it. They could have been identified without being identified in the parade. Earlier, the police had shown the faces of the accomplices identified in the parade in their identity parade. After the trial, the magistrate did not prepare and signed the case under which the investigating officer. Had picked up the investigating officer on the spot. In Chap XXV of Volume III of Police Rule 193, footprints found on the spot were not disclosed on one's bare feet or any footprints; do not have. The weak evidence could not be prosecuted for violating the above R-26, Police Rules, 1934. The recovery of firearms from the co-accused was of no use. It was not affiliated with the commission of the crime in any way, its recovery was also violated in the mandatory provisions of section 103, CRPC and used by the co-accused complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Could not be cited as evidence. The material points to the prosecution failed to bring the accused into the house in such a way as to overturn the suspects, according to which the accused was acquitted. immigration advocates from Khairpur Nathan Shah lawyer