Sections 4 324 and 7 337A (iii) Shuja and Hashima confirmed the report of the officer investigating the evidence and in the medical report conflicting with each other, the victim sealed his presence on the spot. Can prove that. But these injuries will not in any way confirm that whatever was said by him or his partner was true, the statements of the prosecution's witnesses were not in accordance with the FIR's claim. The complainant could not confirm his presence at the time of the complaint, and his family confessed to the bloodshed with others in the area, who fought against the prosecution. And in his statement and in the FIR, the facts revealed that there was no bloodshed between the parties. And the accused had no motive to prove the crime, the prosecution's testimony was full of thought and improvement, which led to him not being present in the incident that caused the incident. As stated in the sender. And if the recovery or discovery was not implicated in the FIR, there would be little help in properly correcting the defects contained in the prosecution's evidence, when it was found that the defendant had been prosecuted in section 337 (iii), pp. Under C, the sentence has been pronounced and the sentence has been pronounced. The court, but was not charged by it, could not maintain the conviction and sentence under Section 733A A (iii), PPC, manipulation of the case under any cannons of law. Had suffered and could have been accused of distortion from the beginning. Reasonable doubts have been proven beyond any shadow, and the criteria and the blame on them
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
