The complainant, who was also an eyewitness in this case, was not examined and there was no justification for the error, which came up in the FIR, from the Pakistan Penal Code section 302/34. The accused magistrate will have the benefit of the doubt. Not only did they record the testimony of the prosecution witnesses under Section 160, the PCP, but they also did not examine the accused's judicial confessions, and the magistrate admitted any of the accused's criminal convictions. The attempt was not made. Recovery counselors were also not examined by the prosecution and no explanation was given by the prosecutor as to why their attendance was not received. Recovery against the suspects also disappeared, from prosecution witnesses. There was not one eyewitness and his evidence was based on the evidence of the hearing, which was opposed by the prosecution's other witnesses, who opposed it, and the adversary's adversary was recognized by the complaining party in the FIR and the prosecution's witnesses. Had given the accused no motive, the prosecution had failed to prove badly. Above the reasonable doubt against the accused, and the co-accused was acquitted by the trial court under the same case, the accused was acquitted with the benefit of the doubt.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
