Lack of evidence from the Peja prosecution led to the release from the indictment for robbery

Peja's prosecutor claimed that the thief who committed the two robberies possessed illegal weapons and caused general danger was the B.A. On this charge, defendant B. He spent 5 months in custody and 4 months in house arrest.

According to the trial justified by the court's chairman, Nushe Kuka-Mekaj, the indictment did not contain sufficient evidence to prove the defendant Bajram was the chief thief.

The court has argued that the clothes found at the scene could not reveal enough DNA profile to compare with the defendant's DNA.

According to the Court, the head of the robbery had not been identified even after examining footage of the country's footage of the event.

The Pec Prosecutor's Act was based on evidence by police officials, who had chanced to be out of office until the robbery had occurred and faced the same. Long after the critical event, police officials, having watched the footage, had expressed their suspicion that the defendant could be the head of the robbery.

These statements by police officials, the Court of Pec, have not been forgiven because when the same was witnessed by the robbery in 2018 and faced the robber, they had not made any identification of the robbers.

This identification, according to the Court, was later made by police officials after the defendant B.A. He surrendered voluntarily to face justice.

“As a witness to the case had also been the two police officials who were close to the quality of witnesses, but in the police these witnesses had compiled only police reports, in which they described the actions taken on the critical night, but in those reports no identified person has been identified since the Court's argument.

According to the Court, police officials had not identified the defendants at the time of criminal acts, even though officials had previously recognised the defendant Bajram. The subsequent identification, according to the Court, had no support in the legal procedure of prior identification with the KPP.

The indictment prosecution had also based it on the fact that defendant Bajram's brother, witness A.A. He had confirmed it to police officials H.A. and the S.K. that his brother B. He had committed a crime.

To this fact, the court has argued that the defendant's brother had testified that the reason for his meeting with police officials had been the expression of the will for the defendant to return and face justice for his alleged robbery and the same had denied that he had admitted that his brother had committed the robbery.

Evidence of the two police officials that the defendant's brother had claimed that the defendant had committed criminal acts, the Peja Court has argued that they had no support in DNA evidence and camera tests.

“These for the court were just an indicator that the accused A., may be the chief criminal acts for which he was charged, and which no doubt relied on any single test whether formal or material”, the Peja Court's reasoning states.

Otherwise, according to the indictment set up on July 1, 2021, by the Peja Prosecutor on July 27, 2018, on the “road. KLA”, in Peja, at the “Play for Win” and at the derivative company “Al Petrol”, the accused B.A., armed and masked, had entered the sports bet, shooting at the floor once while R.M. and A.B. had been witnesses at this location, and robbed a lot of 115 euros. On the gas pump, however, it receives 120 euros.

By what, it was charged with committing criminal work “Grabbitja”, by Article 329, par.3 related to par.1 and Article 81 of the former - The KPRK, for which the prison sentence of 7 to 12 years is presented.

A. It was charged that on the critical night, he had committed the criminal work of causing general danger, having fired from time to time toward the floor, causing danger for witnesses and then as long as he is pursued by H.A. and S.K. police officials, in running away with the same fire, risking their lives and lives of citizens.

By that, he was charged with committing criminal work “The cause of the general risk”, from Article 365, par.1 of the former Criminal Cod, for which the sentence of 6 months to 5 years' imprisonment is provided.

The same was charged with illegal possession, since according to the indictment, after the incident, about 500 meters from the event's decision along with other items, the weapon used by the defendant, which is the type “Zoraki”, for which it is envisioned by 7 thousand and 500 euros or prison sentences of up to 5 years. /Bestim pr Rowso