Sections 392 and 215 of the Criminal Code (v. 1898), section 417 (2), were filed after a delay of more than a month after the appeal against the accusation of bribery, taking gifts to help recover stolen property, Without offering a plausible explanation for such a delay. The complainant had stated in the FIR that after consulting his Nikmard, he had filed an FIR and had been charged with pistol and robbery, the names of the accused were not recovered from the material witnesses, Neither he was exchanged in the FIR nor his statements were recorded during the investigation. Neither complainant could present them to the trial court for recording of their evidence, civil dispute was pending between the parties on agricultural land, an eyewitness denied having witnessed the incident, but prosecutor's evidence Did not inspect him with enmity and cross. Witness testifies in prosecution The suspected complainant, along with his son, involved the accused, about 80 years of age, the prosecution's witnesses contradicted each other on material points. And it seems that the trial court has dealt with the evidence and evidence in the prosecution's evidence very carefully and lawfully. There must be strong evidence before the trial court to lay the basis for the conviction against the accused, and, even if there is doubt, will arise in an intelligent mind. In order to accuse the accused of the crime, the accused had to be extended in favor of the facts for the record of his acquittal from the accused's presence, in any case relating to the trial under trial at the trial.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
