Sections 324 and 337F (iii) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13, the definition of evidence for any person having unlicensed weapons and having unlicensed weapons noted the considerable distance between the complainant and the accused. Since the parties have been shooting the site 300/350 yards away from the sides, it was impossible for the complainant and the prosecution witness to say who had proved the complaint did not explain the weapons of the crime. The weapon in the hands of the accused reflects that the complaining party did not see the accused at the relevant time, The witness presented, while the rest were listed after more than two hours of delays, discussions and consultations. The medical legal report and the doctor's statement also revealed that the affected woman was examined before the report of Franz Science Laboratory could not be given any weight due to the fact that the forensic science laboratory could not be recovered until the gun was recovered. No vacancies were sent to me and both guns and vacancies were lying in the police station, and sent along, with no explanation given about the delay of about two months after the incident. Where they were, but despite the grievance of the complaint, did not rule out the possibility of changing the authorities Can be, but the prosecution failed to establish it. The prosecution had, in the circumstances, failed to prove the accused's guilt through untruthful ocular testimony; the culprit of the accused could not be convicted; the accused was acquitted of the charge, even under the circumstances,
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
