Find a Lawyer

JAMEEL AHMED versus

The Pakistan Penal Code section 392/34 Criminal Code (v. 1898), complimenting Section 103 evidence, the chief complained in his examination that he did not identify the accused because he had relaxed the railway compartment. They had dropped their spectacle. And his eyes were closed. The complainant also stated that his eyesight was weak and he could not see the accused with his glasses. The evidence did not say that the suspect was shown to the complainant at the police station for identification purpose. He also stated that he was taken to a railway police station by some private persons where he saw his bag and cash lying on the table of Section H and did not see his articles in the hands of the accused complainant. Some private individuals were pursued and arrested, but no private person was examined by the prosecution, only two police constables were shown as advisers in this case and this was not shown by the prosecution. How none of the private company was included as a consultant or witness police officer, No doubt there was a good witness, just as a private person did, but in order to rely on such evidence, it was necessary for the prosecutor to show that the private person was tried as a counselor or witness. And only if no private person was available that the evidence of police officers could be relied upon to prove that prosecutor failed to prove his case, conviction or sentence. The trial court set the accused aside advocate from Pindi bhohri lawyer