Section 2/2 / at34 Qatil-e-Amal, the benefit of the doubt was recorded on the basis of the statement of the victim's father, who was not present on the occasion and the prosecution's witness informed the victim's father about the incident. told. Based on the final and final evidence of the circumstances, but at the same time it must meet the standard of proof which satisfies the conscience of the court. The statements of both the prosecution witnesses were inadequate because the original fact, namely the vehicle for boarding or sitting in the victim, was missing. It cannot be said, both witnesses did not see that they had not seen the prosecution's witnesses failed to prove that they were quite natural. Witness, free and true. And that their presence was justified at the relevant time, both witnesses improved their account and brought contradictory statement, according to the prosecutor's story. Both said the witnesses were interested in their testimony. Neither the belief nor the trust-infused trust could possibly have seen the incident, had not been presented to them by the prosecution, but they were prevented from acquiring anything or the suspect from their possession. Medical evidence did not confirm the witnesses' statements on the evidence of the indictment, but the prosecutor's testimony did not include the general testimony. After the arrest, the defendant's conviction could not be sustained solely on the basis of medical evidence, reports by the Forensic Science Laboratory about the blood-stained clothing of the victim have led to suspicion.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
