Sections 2 (2 (b) and 4 i4) Qatiel Ami, Benefit of Doubt, Appreciating the Evidence of Doubts Occurred at 19:20 at night, but the complainant in his report stated that by means of light, the moon or someone The electric bulb complainant, in an attempt to justify the suspect's identity, revealed that he identified the suspect in the light of the light bulb, but his statement was made by police officials. There was no support, which revealed both the prosecution's testimony, the timing and nature of the shootings, the ignorance of both the prosecution's witnesses, the nature and number of shootings. He did not know, made his presence on the spot, highly suspected FIR, was registered after the initial investigation medical evidence, did not support the ocular account forensic science laboratory report that six crimes were vacated by chance. No weapons of crime were recovered from any of the allegations denied by the ocular account, he was asked to be sent to the Franz Science Laboratory to match the recovered crimes, the piece of evidence said, according to the prosecution. In the absence of direct evidence, which was denied, will not proceed to the prosecution, letting the prosecution S Witnesses were unsuccessful. Identifying the date, day, time and other details of the alleged conspiracy against the accused offender, nor have they filed a lawsuit against it, nor any substantive evidence to prove the guilt of the co-accused by the prosecution The record was brought to the trial court, justifying the acquittal of the co-accused in the charge, which could not be excused. On behalf of the prosecution
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
