Section 302/34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 Qatil Omar, Benefiting from a Joint Intent Appeal Suspicion Against the Evidence of Evidence Complainant in the cross-examining nation stated that the co-accused did not know it Was. That she was not charging the co-accused and, if she was acquitted of the charge, would not matter, the accused was charged with effective firing on the deceased, while the co-accused was declared an overt act. Was not granted and only his presence was appealed against the acquittal on the occasion in which the accused were entitled to dismiss, in which case the delay in submitting the report was delayed by five hours. Was done and can be kept safely, in the circumstances, which was then used in discussions and consultations in which the material cont Contradiction was. The statements of the Ocular Account and the Investigation Officer and Medical Officer of the Ocular Account and Medical Officer were not in accordance with the post-mortem report which led to serious doubts about the prosecution case, though not relevant to the accused. ?????? As a controversial piece of evidence, which had to be read with a piece of evidence; and not in isolation. And the loneliness of the accused alone cannot be substituted for the actual evidence. In the case, the clear evidence of the account of the accused, the opinion of the complainant's lawyer was already denied, in that case the prosecution's case contained unnecessary error and the prosecution's witnesses Had contradicted it. The material details to each other; and their testimony was inconsistent, unpredictable, and unreliable. Y
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
