Section 2302, 4?4 and Cri 34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) Qatil-e-Aadam, a joint intention to acquit Qutil Emad, to prove his case against the prosecution accused. Was not worth it. Beyond the veil of any reasonable doubt, the complainant, who was the star of the prosecution and the sole witness, had long been at enmity with the accused, his testimony should be examined with great care and caution; He had taken a different stance from it. At one point, he had taken his preliminary report and, in his judicial statement, violated the contents of the FIR, and presented an entirely different case, His testimony was found to be inconsistent and raised his suspicion on the occasion. At the time of the incident, the complainant's entire testimony was rightly denied by the trial court complainant that 50/60 people from the village were attracted to the occasion, all of whom came to Hospi. However, the investigating officer did not record the statement of any of them, which also raised suspicion about the truth of the complainant's statement and the complainant alleged that his presence on the spot at the time of the incident. 50/60 rounds were fired. And there were vacancies, but the investigating officer did not collect the same, which also made the prosecutor's case suspicious because of the contradictory evidence of the complainant that there were clear contradictions and the events leading up to the trial. There were different versions of. , Their testimony was truly dismissed, the trial was properly legal
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
