The attempt to compile Section 302 (b) / 324/34 Qutal Am, Qatil-e-Aam, evidence of joint intention evidence was appreciated in Bazaar, where hundreds of shops were located, according to the prosecution, witnessed by many. On the spot, but the prosecution could not have presented a single witness to the people present, if the eyewitness had been present on the spot, they would not have explained every moment of the incident nor the complainant in his first report, nor his Earlier in its statement, the trial court had disclosed the type of weapons that the accused was carrying while the incident took place, suspecting the presence of complainant and eyewitnesses on the occasion of non-allocation of arms in the hands of the accused. And shows doubts. The statements of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the two witnesses were completely ignored by the investigating officer complainant and the eyewitnesses, they were summoned from the scene and the prosecution's story as witnesses was contradicted by both medical evidence. Four people were charged with firing on the number of wounds found on the victim's body, but the investigating officer seized the three distinctions while investigating the officer, leaving the Franks Science Laboratory blank to confirm. Were not sent whether it was the work of a person or otherwise a crime To rely on discrimination, especially when the discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses, the inspection time. The complainant had accused her of motivating him in her report, but the prosecution had failed to establish a motive, even to an elder or anyone else, that the prosecutor had set up. M
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
