Clause 302 (b) Conan Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 40 Qatil Ahmed filed an FIR against the four persons for the testimony of the accused, on suspicion and the incident was blind to three of the four persons. Source was terminated. Under Section 6969, CCPX, which was recovered on the indictment of the accused, was sent to the Ballistic Expert, which gave a positive report in connection with which the accused was subsequently arrested after the alleged disclosure. Recovery of the blood-stained ax on the spot was an acceptable piece. Writing the statement of the accompanying offender under section 646464, with evidence in the meaning of clause Q40 of the QQ of Article, CCP stated that the participant did not provide the accused with the opportunity to examine the statement. Gee, there is no evidence on record to prove it. The fact that it was said that the accompanying accused had assisted or benefited the accused in any way while the accused was committing the murder of the trial court, in the circumstances, he had extended the right Suspected co-accused, although recorded for a delay of about six to six days, included a series of circumstances that led to the incident, recovery of blood-stained ax, recording of confessional statement. Had, it seems, been recorded with delay, there was no such delay which would have led to the fact and confession of the statement under section 164. To be mitigated, no eyewitness to the CCP case was available, the circumstances were decided on the basis of evidence and confession. Four people were named in the FIR's statement, and the informant was not an eyewitness, and named the suspect.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
