Section 302, 324 and 34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) Efforts of Qutel-e-Adm Convicted of the murder, two parties were lodged in connection with the parties at the same time and at the same time of the incident, there was evidence of both cases to determine the responsibility of initiating the incident. Which side was it? The complainant alleged that he was present near the store (site of the incident) but neither he was presented as a witness nor his presence was disclosed in the site plan, the fact is that Nevertheless, the shopkeeper was neither examined by police nor identified in the site plan. The incident occurred in his presence inside the shop, both sides concealed material facts and narrated incomplete stories. The complainant did not set up a halo on the spot and the story presented was unbelievable. Medical evidence does not support the complainant's version, although the complainant and his son were fired simultaneously but neither has been found vacant nor any crime weapon has been recovered. None of the four accused could be made zoned because of each person's injuries; no doubt, the statement of the witness with the help of medical evidence in injury cases was sufficient to record the sentence. It was a matter of trust and confidence but both the injured witnesses hid the actual facts of the incident, the complainant did not establish their presence on the spot, at the time
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
