Section 302 (b) / 34 Qatl e amd, the benefit of the doubt as to the common intention evidence, the delay of an hour and a half, could not be explained by the prosecution in filing an FIR that it cannot be denied that There was a missing incident, and the prosecutor was busy consulting and recording the records of the culprits. Upon receiving information about the incident, the police reached the complainant's home, but sources did not disclose the information. Who was the victim's brother. , His name was not mentioned as an eyewitness to the incident. But in court, he improved his statement, claiming to be the eyewitness to the incident. The name and presence of the complainant was omitted in the site plan prepared on the day of the incident, the complainant's presence and reporting of the case was suspicious and not reliable, in particular, the prosecutor's story The relinquishment and identification value was lost by the Complainant's complete discharge from the contents of the FIR by making dishonest modifications to his statement to reinforce it. Witnesses were not presented by the prosecution, which at the time recovered 14 62 boreholes, and two men were accused by the complainant of indiscriminate firing, but they say the vacant laboratory I have not been sent, so as to determine whether it was an act of one person or otherwise when the ocular account was denied, then only the defendant's guilt, through impeachment ocular testimony, Failure to prove is not enough to prove a prosecution, a punishment
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
