The complainant himself did not see the accused himself in praise of the excellent, joint intention evidence in Articles 2 (2 (b) and Q 34 of the murder) when the complainant opened fire on the victim in his first report as an eyewitness to the incident. The name of the woman, who was born on the spot report of the incident, was suspected to be in the spot where the deceased's body was kept for about three hours till police received information. The complainant admitted that the police had not been notified of the incident. Could have moved to a station or a civil hospital and made a report about the incident, but said the non-transfer advised that either they had not seen the attackers. There were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses as presented by the prosecutor, and an unusual delay of about three hours in the residential report to the investigating officer. Concerns and consultations were made, especially when the deceased was lying in the house for three hours, the body of the deceased was neither external nor Internal scrutiny was done, and such a failure was encountered. Made the prosecution's case doubtful, because it was not known whether the late death was due to a fireworks injury or otherwise no vacancy was found and the prosecution failed to establish the intended cause and The incident was missing and commonplace evidence. Interested witnesses, fueled by independent evidence
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
