Articles 2 302, 5, 2015, A, 3, 109 and 34 of murder, kidnapping for ransom, evidence of guilt, disappearance, disappearance of joint intent were causing contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses ? The arrest of the accused. The recovery of the dead body; the confession of the accused; identification of the accused and the recovery of the weapons of the crime, etc. were killed inside the house, but no prisoner heard the firing or took notice of the excavation. The prosecution's version at the time of death was not confirmed. The retrieval of some articles in the form of sentries, sticks, sticks and stones, was not helpful to the prosecution as these items were usually present in the house; they were visited by various police officers on the day of the incident, but Neither the police nor the complaining party noted such articles, even though the complainant's court was open in the courtyard of Hajra, no blood was found, neither on the rock nor the cane retrieval, Hajra said. , Where the incident took place, was a matter of prosecution. The dispute was fraught, and the manner and procedure of the incident, as the prosecutor alleged, was highly skeptical and the evidence presented in support of the case was not false. On the sixth day of the arrest of the accused, the confessional statement, which damaged his credibility and no doubt was found, found no evidence that the weapons of crime were stained with human blood. In the case of the accused, guarding the weapon was not an issue. Prosecutors against this dismissed their case against the accused without any suspicion
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
